
Qass. 
Book. 



JLi41_ 

■Li I 



2. 



j/^r/^^^^-^^-n z 



INTER1::STING POLITICAL DISCUSSION, y ^ ^ 



THE DIPLOMATICK POLICi: 



Oli" 



MR. MADISON UNVEILED. 



IN A SrniES OI- rSSAYS CONTAIXING STIUCTURES JJl'ON THE I.ATE COtlRES- 
rONDENCC BETWBEN 

MR. SMITH AND MR. JACKSON. 

**'The trpest courag'e is discovered by ;i bold exposition of your own faults., ..It 
- is the fart of a vlilgiir iniud to rail not only loil/iuut Ijut against Evidence." 



BY A BOSTONIAN. ,, <*>,(jVO iJU-U 



I 



T is propose.! to examine, in a calm and dispassionate 
manner, without invective, and, as far as is practicable, without undue 
prepossessions, the very interesting measures of Mr. Madison's fhorc 
Administration — Our observations and arguments will be addressed 
to that enlightend portion of the community, who examine before 
they decide ; — who collect, combine and compare facts, before they 
draw inferences ; and who h.ibitually keep their passions in some de- 
gree of subordination to their understandings. 

It will be seen by this introduction, that there are other classes ot 
citizens to whom the following candid remarks, the result of close ex- 
amination and honest and sedulous enquiry, are in no degree address- 
ed: — Let all such men forbear to read what will only serve to con- 
firm their prejudices and inflame their passions — for no observation 
is more correct than that where men have formed violent prepossess- 
ions upon slight or no foundations, those prejudices are only imbit- 
tered by strong and forcible arguments directed against such favou- 
rite opinions. — Those, therefore, who believe that our Administra- 
tion is always in the right, and Great Britain always in the wrong ; 
those who consider it a pi oof of hatred to one's own Country to shew 
^lat the existing and temporary rulers <i it are hurrying it to its 
ruin ; — and especially those who entertain the ungenerous ajid un- 
manly sentiment that every man who examines with Candttr the con- 
duct of a Foreign Nation, cr of it<i Ministers, is either a parti/an or a 



E3<n 



.L 

9 






pensioner of such nation ; had better shut their eyes to these essays, 
at 'he very outset — for liiey will only tend to inflame their resent- 
ments by a !irm and lesoluic exposure of their errors. 

There are some, however, who are neither so candid or so enlighc- 
eneJ as to be entirely open to conviction, and yet not so prejudiced as 
ro be proof against its force — who had learned from sad experience to 
distrust the sincerity of Mr. Jefferson, and were therefore capable of 
discussing with closeness the n>iture of his measures: — Yet these same 
j)ersons deem it unfair to examine, with the same degree of su-picion, 
the conduct of Mr. Madison. 

A charitable sentiment t -wards this Gentlem:in; has acquired a 
Avonderful influence, owing principally to the undeserved praise in- 
cautiously bestowed upon a measure little understood, and which, 
when thoroughly examined, will be ibund to merit a high degree of 
censure. 'Die adjustment with G. Britain was a measure so gratify- 
ing 10 all tlie true lovers of their country, and of its peace, that with- 
out reflection, they were willing to bury all past recollection of Mr- 
Madison's conduct, and to believe that a statesman who had grown 
hoary in the cultivation of deep antipathies to (»reat Britain, vrhn had 
.staked his literary reputalion (dearer to an author than Country or 
liL) in fiuvor of principles which rendered a sincere accommodation 
absolutely hopeless had, by a sort of miracle, been converted by a 
treble, diplomxtick s riplinr^ of Great Britain, into a sincere friend 
to an honorable accommo ation. 

It was openly said that Mr. Madison always had been at heart at 
Federalist : — that he had never pledged himself to the system of eter- 
nal hatred to England which formed the /nost marked feature in the 
policy of his predecessor ; — that the part which he had borne under 
that administration was only subordinate and theatrical ; and that no 
opinion could be formed from that cause of his future measures. 

Disgraceful as. such a bupposiiion was to his character, mean as 
must his conduct have been thus to have played the hypocrite or the 
slave, and false as his me.isures now prove this sentiment to have been ; 
yet these opinions gained proselytes — and there have been moments 
in which Mr. >'adison, for an act which wil. eventually destroy his 
reputation, might have obtained the suffrages of the degraded feder- 
alists. 

Though the counteraction will eventually be as strong as the de- 
ception was complete, and deep indignation will succeed to momen- 
tary applause ; yet, at //;// moment, the difficulties of a publick. writer 
are materially increased. 

Adapted to this state of things must be otir course of procedure.-^ 
The Political Ktstory of Mr. Madison will be first and briefly dis- 
cus.^ed, in order to shew us what we had a rigl'.t to expect of him, 
and to prove that liatred to Great Britain and attachment to Frenclj^ 
politicks were deeply rooted in his own character totally independent 
">[ I;'? connection with Mr. lefFtrson. 



We shall then proceed to consider t!ie arrangement with Mr. Er- 
skine; —in which we shall examine the pi oofs of the imbecility of 
that young geiftleman— th; extraordinary course which was adopted 
of setting upon him all our minisrers separately— the errors into 
which he'' was led and which produced tlie violation of his orders ;— 
The measures the administration adopted to prevent Great Britain 
from acceding to t'iC arrangemei.t- the proofs that it was never ex- 
pestid the arrangement would be ag»eed to, and of course the evidence 
it affords of insincerity- the appointment of Mr. J. Q^ Adams to 
the Court of one of the allies of Bonaparte and enemies ot Great Bri- 
tam, before the rejectiofi of the arr.-;ngemenc was known, with a view 
as it will turn out, to form a coalUion against Great Biitain, or to 
combine in the means of resistance ; a measure calculated to excite 
her jealousy, and to gratify Bonapar'e—Under this head we shall no- 
tice also the conduct of Congress at ihe June session, and shew that it 
was a violation of the implied bar.- am with Mr. Eiskine, and a de- 
parture from Mr. Madison's peisonal assurances r.o that Gentleman; 
and. lastly, the late course of Negociation wiih France, which proves 
that the arrangement with Erskine was explained to Bonaparte as a 
measure which must fail, and that it was intended to widen the bieach 
between us and England ; — In this light Bonaparte received and 
approved of it. 

Having taken this view of the arrangement with Erskine, we shall 
say a few words about the rejecti(ni of it by Great Britain, and the 
motives and grounds of thai measure. 

We shall then proceed to discuss the late negociation with Mr. 
Jackson. In the progress of this discussion, we shall first considei the 
foundation of the charge against Mr. Jackson of having insulted our 
Government : — We shall endeavour to shew, that there has been x\p 
intimacion on his part of any want of veracity in our administration — 
that upon the. point on which the contradiction has been alledged to 
have existed no discordance whatever can be perceived — that he has 
not advanced anv thing which is not adnsitted on the part of our ad- 
ministration ; and that, so far from having aggravated his supposed 
insult, he purposely and delicately abstained in his i st letter from 
repeating the allegation which was pretended to he offensive. 

We shall then proceed to analyze the whole correspondence, and 
to shew that the charge of indecorum rests against Mr. ;-mith : — . 
That his first letter to fvlr. Jackson was a departure from tkose esta- 
blished rules of delicacy and decorum which invariable usage has ren- 
dered indispensable — that misrepresentations of Mr. Jackson's pro* 
posals, and an offensive adherence to ihem after he had explained 
them, are to be perceived thoughout the whole correspondence. That 
instead of Mr. Jackson's intimating in the most i emote degree any 
thing which was denied by our Government, they on the contrary 
have, in a most txplicit manner, nor only questioned his veracity, 
but have directly iotimatcd that he had been guilty of faUehood. 



We shall tl:en attempt to shew the real causes of the lupiure of 
the Negotiation — 'i'hat they are to be found in the^ery able and 
perspicuous manner in which Mr. Jackson had apologized for his 
own government and had repelled the charges made against their 
sincerity — in the impossibility of continuing a negotiation in which 
every pretext for coniinued hostility was so perfectly removed — and 
in the danger to which ihe administration was exposed of having 
their views completely an>i unanswerably displayed. We are aware 
that in proving ilipie propositions- not by argument merely, but by 
quotations from the correspondence, we shall expose ourselves to the 
hasty censures of those rash politicians who, regardless of the high ajid 
zi.thuate reputation oi their coun ry, of th.at repuintion which posteri- 
ty, uninfluenced by our momentaiy passions, will give to us, will stig* 
matize the, writer as the advocate of our ene:;iies. 

We are aware that it is impossible to make the truth palatable, 
when the passions of our readers lead them to prefer deception ; — 
but the duty of attempting to infoim is nnt tlie less imperious because 
it is painful and hazaidous. Let the writer be sacrificed ; — let him be 
branded with all the epithets which inflamed and bigotted passions 
can invent; the truth, however will remain unchangeable, and the day 
will certainly anive, too late perhaps for our safely, too late certainly 
for the vindication of the writer, in which all honest and enlightened 
men will concur in tlie maintenance of his opinions. This may be 
deemed vanity : It deserves that censure, if to expect conviction from 
a cool and dispassionate display of facts, and an impartial course of 
reasoning is an indication of vanity. 

The confidence f^lt by the author in his opinions arises from a con- 
viction that he has thoroughly examined the late policy of our rul- 
ers; — that he has proceeded no farther than lie is supported by facts, 
the evidence of which he shall cite, and of which the publick may 
judge. He means to assume nothing but what he proves as he ad- 
vances ; and he begs the publick to withdraw their belief of his state- 
ments whenever they .ire unsupported by the evidence. On the other 
hand, lie invites and challenges all who may dissent from his opinions, 
to controvert the facts he may state, and the arguments he may de- 
duce from them. 

Happy will he be, if for the first time in moments of political ex- 
citcment, the publick verdict sluiU be rendered in conformity to strict 
principles, and conceded evidence, uninfluenced by existing prejudi- 
ces and unmanageable prepossessions; 

Having dismissed the subject of our negotiations with Great Bri- 
tain, he shall consider our despatches from France, and the manner in 
which they are submitted to the publick attention. He shall in- 
vite tlie most strenaous supporters of the Administration to defend 
this conduct cf our Government in relation to Erance consistently 
with even a moderate dtgrce,noX.o{ Ivjpartialii^ (that has long ceas- 
ed to exist) but of common honesty and fairness. He shall then de- 
duce some strong arguments in support of his opinions of the insin- 



cere views of our Administration towards Great Britain, Ironi the 
unexampled tameness and partiality of tlieir conduct towards France. 



No. 



Mr. J\L:jJjsoy 's character hcforc lie was elected 
President. 

BEFORE we endeavor to display to our readers one of the deep- 
est, and most extraordinary political negon^'i'ons which our annals 
have recorded, a negotiation which establishes beyand a doubt a de- 
termination either to quanel with Great Biiiain or to prevent a ptace 
•with her on a?i}' terms ; it will be useful to consider whether we had 
a right to expect suth conduct in Mr. Madison — whether it comports 
with, or is opposed to former views of his character. — This is ex- 
tremely importarit both to hirn, and to us in forming a correct judg- 
menc of his measures-^-For if Mr. Madison has heretofore manifested 
an impartial and unbiassed disposition towards the two great Bellige- 
rents — if he has disrc.vered a sincere wish to preserve a good under- 
standing with Great Britiin, and a proper spirit of indignation at the 
injuries of France, it would req .ire pretty strong evidence before we 
could believe him culpable of forming so deliberate a plr-n to force 
the former into an open rupture, — if on the other hand, his late con- 
duct shall appear to be perfectly consistent with the former history 
of his life if a state of ill humour and ill will towards Great Btitain 
shall appear to have been the prevailing temperament of his mind, 
and especially if it shall turn out that he has acquired his influence 
with hisovpn party, chiefly by fostering such prejudices, surely it will 
not be deemed uncharitable to consider the unv.'earied pains which 
have been taken to produce an irreconcilable rupture, as resuhir;:' 
from a fixed and premeditated plan. 

Mr. Madison came into Congress in the year 1778 — Our open alli- 
ance with France had just then taken place — The views, the ambitious 
and interested views which led the Cabinet of Vtrsaiiles to adopt our 
cause, and which were so frankly acknowledged in Mr. Genet's in- 
structions, were even a: that early period discovered by the Delegates 
from the Eastern States. It was soon perceived that our indepen- 
dence was one of the last objects which entered into the policy ol 
France — /^ separation from Great Britain accompanied by such 
weakness on our part as should render us dependent on herself was 
the extent of her good will towards us. 

It would astonish those, who are ignorant of the intriguing policy 
of France ro be informed, what was the fact, that this ally so full of 
professions, moved every wheel in the political michine to prevent 
our growth, and to check our solid independence. — To this end, she 



early fomented a party in Congress — To this end she even intrigued 
with our commnn enemy— Fo this end she endeavoure.1 to dimuiibk 
our territorial claims o this end bhe opposed the cession of the 
Fisheries to us - To tliis end in short she insisted that even our Inde- 
pendence should noi be a sine qua ni n of a treaty. — But the most 
extraordinary part of this history is, that men could be found in our 
own councils re.idy to co-operaie in the French views. It is however 
a fact, thar there existed in Congress a Gallican and an jlnti-GaMc^n 
interest — that the New England Delegates were without an excep- 
tion, of the latter description, and that Mr. Madison and a formida- 
ble party belonged to the former — Ve do not mean to intimate ac- 
tual corruption to which it is believed he was always superiour, but 
strong prepossessions — It is a fact that our ministers were insiructed 
xofo'h'vj the advice of Mom. De i'crgimws in relation to a peace — that 
it was even debated whether the fislieries should bs made an indispen- 
sable condition — and that an attempt was made to censure Hitr. 
Ad.ims and Mr. Jay, for the honodrable peace which in spite of 
French intrigues they had effected. 

Thus early and deeply seated in the marrow, were Mr. Madison's 
Galiick prejudices, and it surely cannot excite surprize that a man 
who in 1779 and 1780, could pause between the interests of the 
United States and the wishes of France, should in 1808 and 1809 
glide over, nay almost gloss over the unexarrpied outrages of the 
same nation. 

" With France, (says this Guardian of our lights when communi- 
cating to Congress the late in.ufferable letter of C?hampagny indicat- 
ing his Majesty's unalterable will) with I'Vance the other belligerenti 
the posture of our affairs does not correspond with the measures taken 
on the part of the 1 'ui'ed States 10 effect afavoura'-le change." 

But whether this is wing to accident, to iho. failure of "ur despatches f 
or to the insolent prettnsions of France our Fxecutive gives no inti- 
mation — Why ? Because every man in the naiion reads the speech of 
the President, while a comparatively small part will ever see the in- 
sulting letter of Mr. Champagny. 

Such are the two extremes of Mr. Madison's political life — such 
was he in • 779 — such we tind him in 1809. — Let us now see how the 
intermediate series has been filled up. It is immaterial to the present 
discussion to ronsidei his u; ion with Mr. Hamilton and Mr Jay in 
procuring the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and his subse- 
quent desertion of the Fcdcriil Cause as soon as that Constitution went 
into opf?ratior. - it is only with regard to his opinions as to our fo- 
rehn reatioi.s, that the history of Mr. Madison is important in the 
present discussion 

Upon the breaking out of the war between Great Britain and 
France, new and important duties and relations took place in the po- 
licy of the I'nitei states. General Washington resolved upon an 
Impartial Neutrality.— The parly to which Mr. Madison has from 
that moment attached his fortune^, condemaed that Neutrality.— 



I^r. Madison was one of the most strenuous cpposers of it, and he 
wrote a series of political specuhitions to render that measure un- 
popular. — When our difficulties with Great Britain assumed a seri- 
ous aspect, Mr. Madison was among the foremost to widen the 
breach, and to censure the s^eps adopted by Washington to restore a 
friendly intercourse between us and Great Britain. — He brought for- 
ward in the House of Representatives certain resolutions to defeat the 
principal objects of the President, and we owe to the eloquence of 
Mr Ames, and to the vigorous stand which the Inhabitants of Bos- 
ton and of New- England generally, made to Mr. Madison's proposi- 
tions, the preseivaiion of our country from the horrors of war, and 
the unexampled blessings which have flowed from the prudent and 
wise conduct of our Illustrious President. 

In this most critical period of uur National affairs, we find Mr. 
Madison devoted to the policy of France, courting a contest with 
Great Britain, and ready to hazard our best Interests for the sake of- 
his personal prepossessions. — What reason have we to expect, that a 
man who was in favour of an alliance with France in 1 794, when we 
were so little able to engage in a contest with any nation, should not 
at this moment entertain the same views when our own strength is so 
materially improved, and when his old, his long continued favorites 
the French, increased beyond example in their power, are upon the 
point of accoaaplishing their views of universal dominion ? 

Mr. Madison, thvvarted in his project of embarking; the United 
States in the contest in favour of France, quitted the Government in 
disgust, not to retire as a private citizen to submit to measures which 
he couid not controul, but to fan the embers of civil dissension in his 
native state. 

Vi e next find him in the legislature of Virginia, opposing the mea- 
sures of Mr. Adams, and as Chairman of a Committee organizing the 
whole force of that Proud and Imperial State against the measures, 
the constitutional measures of Congress. — In this conduct also we 
discern his foreign prepossessions- -Our country was then threatened 
with a. war with 1 n;nce — To avoid the dangers to which we were 
exposed by French Emissaries, the Alien and Sedition laws were 
passed. — The whole scope and object of those laws was to lid our 
Naf.on of a set of Spies, with whoni the intriguing" policy of France 
fills every country she wishes to subdue. iVlr. Madison true to his 
first prejudices opposed these laws, though he well knew they were 
to operate only upon thr publick enemies of our Country. 

'.«. he success of the machinations of Mr. Madison and his party is 
too well known. The Gallick Interest triumphed over the Interests 
of the American people, and Mr. Madison for the last eight years has 
been enjcymir the fruits of thirty yeajs most assiduous labours. 

I he history of Mr. Jefferson's ai^ministralion is one continued tis- 
sue of devotion to Prance and of hostility to Britain; perfectly in- 
dec'l correspondea:: to llie professions and to the me.ms by whicli they 
acquired power, but as certainly destructive of the best interests of 



8- 

the United States as well, as subversive oi ihe honest piinciples of an 
Impartial ."-Jeutr lity. 

Is Mr. Madison accountable as Secretary of State for this policy ? 
Is he to be presumeJ a partaker in il ? 

Mr. Madison is a man indepenulent in his circumstances — If he 
was not, no apology can be made for any man who would not only 
consent to hold an oflke under an administration which was pursuing 
measures opposed to his sentiments, but who would submit to be 
the immediate organ of such measures. Mr. Madison not content 
with his official duties, has volunteered in defence of the measures ot 
Mr. Jefferson, and it will evenrually appear that he was not the dupe 
or the obedient slave of Mr. Jefferson, hut the principal Instigator 
of tlK)se measures which without the slightest occasion have brought 
us to our present deplorable condition. 

Such has been Mr. Madison. Vv^hat he // w^e shall proceed to shew — 
but before 1 quit this subject, I must beg to be indulged in one or 
cwo remarks. 

The great men in every democratick Government, but more especio 
;illy in our own, however they may appear to lead must in effect fol/onv 
the popular Impulse. — It was said by some indiscreet persons, that 
Ml. Madison might count on the support of the Federalists, and of a 
portion of /vV cnvfi paity if he should adopt a truly honest and im- 
partial policy. This is a mistake, and Mr. Madison knows better. — 
The history of M'Kean and of Burr, and of Randolph, shews that 
there is no sort of compromise with democracy. They sacrifice with- 
out a struggle an oU friend as they adopt a ne-w on-;, like John Q^ 
Adiims, or if I may be allowed to name him in the same line, V/illi- 
am Gray. — Democratick chiefs must follow, not dictate the mea- 
sures of their dependents. 

This cannot be more fully exemplified than in the late arragement 
with Mr. Erskine. Was it an hoticst one ? Was it serious ? Why then 
not praised by the democrats? Why a studied and costive silence? 
Why a continuation of the abuse against Great Britain ? When known 
to be rejected, why such manifest delight? Why the appearance of 
a triumph? Why the exultation as if the United States had gained 
a battle ? 

This subject I shall again recur to with more distinct application. 



No. III. 



Mr. Erskixk's Arrangement considered in its Origin, 
Progress and Issue. 

DIFFICULT as the path to permanent peace and reconciliation 
to Great Britain, appeared to be with such a temper as that of our 



administration, hefore Mr. Ersklne's arrangement, that unfortunate 
measure has not only superadded new embarrassments, but our min- 
isters appear to be resolved to substitute it as a principal and an in- 
surmountable obstacle. — They not only take credit to themselves for 
the proof which they pretend tliat measure afforded of their desire to 
conciliate Great Britain — but they adduce the rejection of that agree- 
ment as evidence, not merely of insincerity, but of perfidy. — In their 
late discussions with Mr. Jackson, abandoning their cautious policy, 
and secure as they thought themselves in the confidence of the people, 
whom they conceived they had managed, they adopted a high and 
offensive tone, ill calculated to restore a friendly intercourse — they 
repeated and persisted in direct insinuations of a dishonourable breach 
of faitli, and declared that Great Britain still persevered insolent and 
inadmissible pretensions, notwithstanding the British envoy as repeat- 
edly, in language the most unequivocal, denied that he w^as directed 
to persevere in any such pretensions. 

Since then, in place of the dispute about the orders in Council, the 
questions of Impressment, of the Colonial trade, and of the Chesa- 
peake, a new cause of contest has been conjured up, to which a still 
more serious air is attempted to be given. Those of us who are 
opposed to a war, unless it be necessary for our honour, and who 
think it possible that a set of men who have heretofore deceived us, 
may deceive us again, will think it prudent to examine to the very 
foundation, the late arrangement with Mr. Erskine, and see, whether 
it affords any additional just ground for dissatisfaction with Great 
Britain, and whether it does not offer new reasons to doubt the sin- 
cerity of our government. 

Our ministers appear to place great reliance on the testimony of 
Mr. Erskine, v/ho having once deceived them, and having betrayed 
an uncommon share of weakness, one would think they would deem 
little deserving of confidence. For my part, I consider this testimony 
very little relevant to the questions in dispute, imlesi as it fujould seem 
our Administration mean to rely on two grounds, so affrontive to the 
British Cabinet, as to shut the door forever to Negociatiom Those 
points are, ist. That Mr. Canning fabricated or voluntarily misrep- 
resented the three proposals which in his letter of the 23d of January, 
1809, ^^ states, he understood were either proposed by or were ac- 
ceptable to our Cabinet — and, 2dly. That although Mr. Jackson, in 
behalf of the British ministry, solemnly, on the honour of his sove- 
reign, declares that there were no other Instructions on this subject than 
those contained in the letter of Mr. Canning of January 23d, yet that 
in fact other Instructions did exist. 

I repeat, and I beg the public to notice it, and weigh the force of 
the remark, that it -would seem that the object and the only object of 
pubhshing Mr. Erskine's explanatory letters is to give rise to two 
opinions : — That Mr. Canning voluntarily misrepresented the dis- 
patches of Mr. Erskine as to the three conditions ; and that Mr. 
2 



10 

Erti-.ine had other Instniciions than those which the British govem- 
nu'iit declHre were l!ie only ones. 

Now ir a war is intended, and is considered desirable or inevitable, 
it may not be indecent iu our government to make such suggestions ; 
but it" not, 1 can see no motive in publishing Mr. Erskine's letters, as 
they have no possible tendency but to excite unjust suspicions of the 
integrity of the British Cabinet. 

Since', however, some importance is thus attached to the letters of 
Mr. Erskine,* it will be well to consider his situation and the weight 
to which his testimony is entitled. — I say nothing at present of the 
manner in whi:h these lettc^rs were obtained, nor of the suggestion in 
one of the Southern papers that they were first submitted to our 
ministers for their approbation ; but I do maintain that Mr. Erskine's 
oion Interest, owing to his misconduct, has become identified with the 
Inicrebt of our Cabinet — that he is a party, and not a witness — 
he is a culprit convicted and punished by his own government — whose 
character as a statesman is completely destroyed in Great Britain, 
and whose only hope is to reconcile himself to the opposition in his 
own country and the American Government and People, to whom 
he is attached by the ties of property and marriage. 

Mr. Erskine had represented to his own Government that our 
Administration were ready to accede to certain propositions. — When 
the authority arrived to close wilh those proposals, and when he found 
lliat the parlies with whom he had treated denied or shrunk from the 
supposed agreement, how natural was it to endeavour to justify him- 
self by qualifying the language he had used to his own Government, 
especially after it was ascertained that he had nothing further to hope 
from them, and might calculate on some portion of re.'-pect from our 
country, and from the minority in his ov\ai. 

There v/as another part of his negociation which equally tempted 
him to a representation favourable to the views of our Administra- 
tion. riio violation of the letter and spirit of the Instructions of Mr. 

Canning of the 23d of January, was so glaring as^to leave no hope 
of justification dther to him or our ministers. — The only possible 
excuse was to suggest that there were other Instructions — His remarks 
on this head are vague and inexplicit. — Other Instructions he undoubt- 
edly had, previously to this arrangement, because the subjects had 
been often discussed, and had been pending for several years — but all' 
of them had been merged and buried in the orders of January 23d, 
which alone, as the British government assure us, contained the whole 
authority on this particular topick. 

Let distempered Jealousy exert its utmost powers, it can never 
persuade an impartial man, that Great Britain or any other nation, 
in the act of dis^^racing a minister, would dare to alledge, that he had 
violated his ins"tructions, and that a particular letter contained the 
nvhok of them, when the disgraced minister, supported by powerful 
friends, was possessed of evidence to refute the charge. If such a mon- 
arch us Bonaparte, who silences the voice of complaint by confinement 

* Sec Note to No. 4." 



11 

in tlie Temple or tlie Castle of St. Margarita, cowld adopt sudi a 
course, the thing woukl be impracticable in Great Britain against a 
man of Noble Extraction — the son of a distinguished Peer, of a ci-de- 
vant Chancellor — and the most eloquent man in the kingdom. 

One other circumstance goes very much against the weight of Mr^ 
Erskine's statements. As soon as the disavowal of his arrangement 
was known, an apology for him, feeble and defective enough to be 
sure, was published m the Gazette of the United States. It was soon 
understood, alledged, and never contradicted, to have been written 
by him. In that' apology, full of censure against his own govern- 
ment, he does not pretend that he had any other Inslrudhns^ but he 
concludes with a threat, that shews he already conceived his own 
interest to be opposed to that of his government. — The intimation is, 
that he had settled the difficulties with this country, and that those, 
meaning his own masters, the British ministers, must look to it, who 
had stirred up a hornet's nest about their ears by disavowing liis 
agreement. Such were his feelings before our government called 
upon him for his aid in exciting the publick resentment against his 
own country. If from these causes he was biassed in his statement, 
he would not be the first man who has done an unwise tiling to prove 
iiimself a prophet. 

Having made these preliminary remarks, let us now see how the 
proposal for the withdrawing our Non-Intercourse Laws and the 
British Orders originated. It wil Inot be denied, that only Six Months 
previous to this event. Great Britain had peremptorily refused aa 
offer made by Mr. Pinkney precisely like the agreement of Mr. Ers-, 
kine. — It will not be denied, that the firit authority, and as the British 
ministry contend, the only authority, ever given to Mr. Erskine on 
this subject, was contained in the letter of the 23d of January, which 
comprised three conditions, ist. That u^e should continue our laws 
of Non Intercourse against France and her allies. — 2dly. That we 
■would relinquish such part of the Colonial Trade as we did not enjoy 
in time of peace. — 3d. That we should by treaty permi.t the British 
ships (to do what they would have a right to do without) to capture 
all our ships contravening this agreement. It will not be denied, that 
neither of these conditions was complied with in the arrangement, and 
if any other Nation had been concerned but Great Britain, and espe- 
cially if we ourselves were (in pari casu) similarly situated, we should 
entertain no doubt of the right to reject the conveution — But not' 
content with abusing Great Britain for the exercise of a right rendered 
sacred by immemorial usage, and still more sacred by reason and 
justice, an attempt is made to convert these very conditions, these 
very Instructions, into a new offence. — It is said they are inadmissi- 
ble : — It is said they are in^olent — that they are an aggravation of^ 
previous injury. — ihis might pass if confined to those base journals 
who have infringed the sacred immunities of a publick minister, but. 
they have also found their way into the recesses of the Cabinet. 



12 

Now I will meet the whole diplomatick host on this point Vfith 
^.onfiJence. — Those Instructions convey no insult, considering the 
circum'.tances under which they were framed — They were inserted in 
a solenm letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which he was 
permitted to shew in extenso. It could not at that time certainly be 
foreseen that Erskine would break his Instructions, that a treaty 
would be formed, and that Great-Britain would be compelled to dis- 
avow it. — It was addressed to the very tnan who is said to have written 
to Mr. Canning that our Ministers had agreed to two of the Condi- 
tions — It must have been the height of impudence and folly in Mr. 
Canning to have stated to Erskine that he so understood him, if he 
had no authority for so saying — It was Erskine's duty, if he found 
Mr. Canning had misrepresented him, to have withheld the proposi- 
tions, and to have rectified the mistake. 

Grant, therefore, all that Erskine and all that our ministers with 
so much !=ophistry endeavour to explain. Grant, (which I do not 
admit) that Mr Erskine misunderstood our ministers as to those 
conditions ; still Mr. Canning was really deceived. — It is impossible, 
it is against all human probability, that he would have written to 
Mr. Erskine " that /:e understood from him that two out of the three 
conditions were agreed to by our ministers," unless he verily believed 
it. There is an end then forever to the pretext of insult in these 
proposals. Tliey were proper and respectful, because believed to be 
our own. — As to the third condition, pronounced the most iffensive, it 
is alledged to have been agreed or assented to by Mr. Pinkney, and 
we see no evidence to counteract or control this suggestion. 



No. IV, 



The Origin^ Progress and Issue of Mr, Erskine's Ar- 

rangement, 

WE have already shewn that this famous arrangement originated 
in several propos.tions stated by Mr. Erskine to be the result of cer- 
tain conferences with the members of our cabinet ; and that so far 
from being the cause of new offence, these propositions must have been 
presumed by Mr. Canning to have been acceptable to our ministers. 
To disprove this point, the members of our Cabinet have assailed the 
discontented and disgraced minister, Mr. Erskine, and have induced 
him to make some explanatory concessions. These concessions, pub- 
lished by our Government in their own vindication, must, accordmg 
to all fair rules of construction, be considered most strictly against 
themselves ; and we deduce from them most unequivocal proofs, 
that Mr. Canning had a right to draw the inferences which he has 
announced. 



Mr. Erskme*s letter of the 14th of August is brought forward as 
ihe apology of our Government, and as calculated to prove that Mr. 
Canning was not authorized to presume that our Government would 
accede to the three conditions stated in his lettei of instructions. The 
contrary inference may most fairly be drawn from Mr. Erskine's 
letter. His letter consists of two distinct parts : — 1st. His statement 
of what he had actually communicated to his own Government ; and 
2d. His declaration of what were his own private Impressions^ when 
drawn nut by tlie denial of our ministers. 

Upon the first condition, which imported that upon the repeal of 
the Britiih Oiders in Council, we would withdraw our Non-Inter- 
course as it respected Great Britain, and persevere in our Non- Inter- 
course wiih France and her allies, Mr. Erskine states, that Mr. Mad-- 
iscn assured him that "the United States would at once side w^illi 
that power against the other which might continue its aggressions." 

Upon being pressed noiu, after the affair, to explain himself, he 
says, that he never considered this to be a preliminary condition, 
because he knew that the President had no such power without the 
concurrence of Congress. 

This, it must be remembered, is Mr. Erskine's private opinion, 
after the disavo'zval, and is not stated to have been made known to his 
Cabinet. This distinction of Mr. Erskine, sophistical and absurd 
enough to be sure, is tiie same which Mr. Erskine set up in his own 
defence in the Gazette of the United States, where he says, that he 
could not have presumed that a British Minister was so ignorant of the 
American Constitution as to believe that the President had such a 
power. 

This very argument proves that he never stated this distinction to 
his own Government, but presumed that they would understand it 
themselves. The whole of this reasoning is however bottomed upon 
an error ; for as the President and Senate have a right to conclude 
Treaties, which ipso facto become the supreme law of the land, Con- 
gress are bound like all other subjects of this country, to carry them 
into execution. — This principle was settled in the case of Jay's treaty. 

Upon the second condition, Mr. Erskine stated to his Government 
that Mr. Gallatin said, " that it was the intention of the United States 
to abandon the attempt to carry on a trade with the Colonies of the 
belligerents in time of war, which was not allowed in time of peace ;" 
and the reason he assigns is conclusive evidence, that he understood 
Mr. Gallatin rightly ; — for he adds, " that the United States would 
trust to their being permitted by France to carry on such trade in 
time of peace, as to entitle them to a continuance of it in time of 
war." 

This is too plain to require any explanation ; it includes the total 
cession of the colonial trade. This is what Mr. Erskine stated to his 
Government, and on this express idea is Mr. Canning's second pro- 
posal founded. 



14 

Four montlis after this, and after his disgrace, Mr. Erskine declares^ 
that he undtrstooil by tliis, only the direct colonial trade ; but this he 
did not state to Mr. Canning — and could Mr Canning divine it ? 
Might not, indeed did not Mr, Canning suppose, that as our trade 
•with the colonies of France was reduced by captures of the French 
islands, and actual blockade, to almost nothing, that our Cabinet were 
ready to relinquish it ? 

Thus it is proved, that the propositions made in Mr. Canning's 
letter of the 23d of January, 1809, so far from being insolent, were 
in fact founded upon what he had a right to presume were principles 
to which our ministers had acceded ; and it is far from being proved 
that they did not give Mr. Erskine reason to believe that they did 
agree to them. 

We shall now proceed to prove that the arrangement entered into 
with Mr. Erskine affords no proof of a wish on the part of our Cab- 
inet to adjust our differences with Great Britain ; but that it v/as 
rather expected that it would widen the breach. 

1st. There was good reason tolielieve, at the moment of the ar- 
rangement, that he had not only acted without full poivers, but that 
he had violated his Instructions. 

This point once established, and it being once conceded that our 
Government expected a disavowal, it is a proof of great insincerity^ 
instead of a desire of preserving peace. 

No point can be more fully settled than that a mere letter of cre- 
dence, appointing a man a minister resident, or even plenipotentiary, 

docs not of itself include the power to make a treaty Hence we 

find that when ministers plenipotentiary have made tieaties, they have 
exchanged their full powers with the persons appointed to treat with 
them, although they themselves may have been resident at the Court 
of the sovereign with whom the treaty is made for several years. 

This principle acquired additional force, and if usage had not sanc- 
tioned it, the particular circumstances in which Mr. Madison stood, 
would have afforded an ample apology for demanding Mr. Erskine's 
powers. Mr. Madison is an officer with limited power. This fact 
foreign nations are supposed, and indeed obliged to know. He was 
not empowered to restore the Intercourse with Britain, except on the 
condition of his Britannick Majesty's having actually withdrawn his 
Orders in Council. He might, however, have considered hi^ Majesty's 
promise to withdraw them, on a day certain, as tantamount to avi 
actual repeal ; — but in such case, he had a right, nay, he was in duty 
bound, to call for the power of the Minister. Why was it not done ? 
Because it was known, we say, not to exist. — 1 lie delicacy in tJiis 
case was truly ajfected. Great Britain could not have taktn offence 
at the demand of an authority, when that authority was indispensable 
to the exercise of Mr. Madison's power. 

But the actual condlllous of Mr. Erskine's instructions were known i 
and it was known that the arrangement violated them. 



15 

This is in proof. 

1st. By Mr. Erskine's letter of the 29th x^pril, to his own govern- 
ment, in which he states, that he had discussed the three conditions 
verbatim et seriatim, that is, word for word, and gives the replies of 
our minis* ers. 

2d. By Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th of October last, in which 
be admits that tlie three conditions were known to him. And 

3dly By Mr. Erskine's explanatory letter, written at the request 
of our government, in which he says, « that in the discussions upon 
these conditions, he found no reason to believe, that any difficulties 
would occur in the accomplishment of the two former conditions, as 
far as it was in the power of the President of the United States to 
agree to the first, and consistently with the explanation which I had 
given of tlie last." 

Thus then it seems, the conditions were m fact knotun ; and if there 
existed pullick reasons, arising from Mr. Madison's limited powers, to 
require an authority before he ahrogatedy by his fiat, an act of Con- 
gress, how much were these rea'ons increased, with how much more 
force they operated, w'hen he was informed, that the British Minister 
was clogged with certain conditions, not one of tvbich was conceded ? 
If prudence would before have required a full exhibition of powers, 
how much were these motives increased by this disclosure of the 
expectations oi (he '£>r\iish. Cabinet, and the certainty of their dis- 
content with the terms actually agreed upon ? 

But a nice metaphysieal distinction is set tip, rather calculated fcr 
the mob, than for the reasoning part of society, that the instructions 
of January 23d, from Mr. Canning, though known in substance, were 
not shewn In extenso ; and a specie^ of jockeying law is introduced, 
that it was possible there might be provisional instructions of a lower 
tone. The whole evidence is now before the publick ; and it appears 
that the conditions were not merely the substance, they were the <wkoie 
of Mr. Erskine's Instructions, and under tne very limited authority 
cf Mr. Madison it was his duty so to have presumed. 

But i shall perhaps be asked, what motive could Mr. Madison 
have, knowing he was thus restricted, and knowing he was liable to 
punishment tor violating a law of Congress, to make a conventiou. 
which he presumed would not be ratitied ? 

I have one answer to make, which will be amply sufficient, though 
I can give twenty : — 

Ke knew that the party, on which alone he depended for support, 
would praise him for any act which would prevent an adjustment 
with Great Britain. He knew tnore, that any honest and fair arrange- 
ment with that nation, would be fatal to his popularity and power. 

He was influenced in that case by the same motives which induced 
him to adopt the late more extraordinary step, of dismissing a British 
Envoy under a pretence of an insult, which never existed. 

In both cases he was sme of, and he has received, much more sin- 
cere praise from his friends, than if he had closed witl: Mr. Jackson's 



ib 

oficr, and iiau conducted, as that gentleman is authorized to do, a 
final adjustment of all our difFerences. 

That these suggestions are not the offspring of a jealous and fault- 
finding disposition, the publick will believe, when 1 come to consider 
the offensive measures adopted by our government, to prevent even 
the onesided arrangement of Mr. Erskine from being accepted hf 
the British Cabinet. 

[See the Note to this paper, No. 4, in the JffenJix.) 



No. V. 



T/je Origin, Progress and Issue of Mr. Euskia^'e^s Ar- 

rangetneni, 

IT has been shewn that this arrangement originated in proposals 
transmitted by Mr. Erskine as from ojir oivn Government : — That the 
instructions are formed upon a basis supposed to have been proposed 
by them : — That the convention itself affords no evidence of sincerity 
on the part of our administration, because it was concluded not only 
without a demand of Mr. Erskine's full powers, without a knowledge 
that such powers existed, but with the express knowledge that he vio- 
lated what he had stated to be his instructions. We have endeav- 
oured to shew a good reason why our Government should be willing 
to take such a hazardous step with the full conviction that the agree- 
ment would be rejected — that the tendency of it would be to widen 
the breach between the two countries, and therefore would be the 
most grateful offering which Mr. Madison could make to his own 
party, and that as such it has been received — received as a pledge of 
his devotion to their views, of his disposition to gratify the most 
favourite wishes of their hearts. 

Mr. Madison had further motives sufficiently powerful to induce 
Mm to take this bold and artful step. 

The Non-Intercourse with Great Britain, as a substitute to the 
Embargo, pleased no party in the United States. It was an extorted 
compromise with the different parties in our country. To the south- 
ern states it afforded but an imperfect relief The necessity of tran- 
shipment, of a circuitous voyage in order to bring their staple pro- 
ductions to their best market. Great Britain, afforded them only a 
partial remedy. Whatever may be the pretences of Mr, Madisoti, 
that the United States have suffered an " irreparable injury " by Mi". 
Erskine's agreement, and that Great Britain has gained an essential 
advantage, the people of the United States know and feel the contrary 
to be the fact. — The most popular act, therefore. Mr Madison could 
have performed, was the opening of the direct trade with Great ■ 
Britain. — i'his is well known, and this the experience of the short 
interval of freedom abundantly proves. 



|: 



Another consideration powerfully operated with Mr. Madison. — 
It had been contended by Mr. Madison and his party, from the time 
of his famous resolutions in 1795, that America held the destinies of 
Great Britain in the hollow of her hand — that we had only to open 
our granaries, and she enjoyed plenty — and to close them, and she 
starved. The Embargo was the effect and the experiment of this 
policy. Although it disappointed all the hopes of its friends, yet the 
folly of Mr. Er^kine (to use the mildest term) seemed to oifer them 
a hope of proving to their party, what experience had already con- 
vinced the leaders was not true, that their prophecies were correct. 
If the second nation in Europe could be compelled to relinquish her 
general policy, without a substitute, merely by our restrictive ener- 
gies ; the triumph of Mr. M idison would be complete. 

Although, therefore, he might have known, and as we have shewn 
did know, that Great Britain never meant to recede from her system 
of retaliation, but with a substitute on our part, which would com- 
pletely supercede it aud occupy its place ; yet when he found a feeble 
minister capable of being cajoled by general pYofessions, and influ- 
enced by a desire of assisting the party to which his father and him- 
self belonged in Great Britain, who (always in opposition) had par- 
ticularly opposed the British retaliating Orders ; is it extraordinary 
that Mr. Madison should be willing to agree to an arrangement, 
though persuaded that it would be rejected, which would afford a 
temporary triumph to his principles ? 

His game was a certain one — he could not be a loser, and he might 
gain immortal glory. 

If, said he. Great Britain, unwilling as I know her to be, to enter 
into a contest with us, shall ratify the unauthorized act of her minis- 
ter, then we can justly boast that our policy, our restrictive, pacific, 
energetic policy, has brought to our feet the proud mistress of the 
ocean j my praise will be" in all the cities ; and France, grateful for 
my co-operation, will add new praises and new laurels to my brow. — 
But if Great Britain, indignant at the conduct of her minister, shall 
refuse to ratify, we shall have created a new cause of complaint ; I 
shall be fixed more firmly than ever in the affections of my party, 
and in the good will of France. 

Though these considerations were sufTicient to any reasonable cal- 
culating politician, yet Mr. Madison looked still deeper. " The pas- 
" sions of a populace (he must have said to himself) are not so easily 
" controlled. The leaders must consult these passions, not attempt to 
*' direct them. It is too Herculean a task to hope to render a state of 
"peace v.ith Great Britain jiofmlar. The federalists and men of 
" property will support me, to be sure, but an honest peace with Eng- 
" land will destroy the firmest administration. To avoid then this 
" rock upon v.'hich even Washington's administration had almost split, 
" I will take care (said Mr. Madison) so to conduct this negociation 
" that it shall be impossible, absolutelu iinhOKf^ibl'', for Great Britain to 
"' accede to the arrangement. "" 



18 

In examining jMr. Erskine's agveemenl wc accordingly find a lan- 
guage adopted by oin- cabinet which breathes the spirit of defiance, 
ralhev than of fricndsliip ; which resembles rather a manifesto of war 
than a friendly discussion leading to a permanent peace. 

When parties suppose they are about to settle their differences, it 
is common and it is natural to adopt a language of conciliation. In 
this case we find no courtesy, but a spirit of reproof. Great Britain 
had contended, that it was our duty, to repel the aggressions of France, 
and she had manifested a disposition uniformly to withdraw her Orders 
in Council whenever we should take any effectual steps to vindicate 
our own rights against France, in the vindication of which she herself 
had a direct interest : — For her Orders in Council were nothing more 
than retaliating upon her enemy that injustice which neutrals (the 
only one of w'hich remaining was America) permitted France to in- 
flict upon her through (heirjlagfi. 

As soon then as Great Britain found we were disposed to resist the 
decrees of France, she was ready to withdraw her Orders in Council, 
inasmuch as our laws, if duly enforced, would supercede the necessity 
of her blockade. 

Upon this basis Mr. Erskine's arrangement is professedly founded 
— ^but although this was the only ground upon which Great Britain 
could w ith any honour as it respected her enemy withdrav/ her Or- 
ders in Council, yet our Ministers inserted in this pretended and affect- 
ed pacific arrangement, a clause which took away from Great Britain 
the only saivo to her pride — the only apology for her honour. They 
declared that the act prohibiting intercourse with France did not 
« proceed from any disposition to produce an equality between the two 
" nations, but arose from separate and distinct considerations." In 
other words, lest you should presume that we were actuated by a 
sense of justice to you or by your remonstrances on that subject, we 
declare vic had no intention to do you justice, and your acknowledg- 
ment and repeal we choose to have considered as a pure concession 
to us and to our forcible and energetic measures. 

A still more aff"rontive clause was added to the acceptance of satis- 
faction for the Chesapeake. 

The Government of the United States, did accept, as a full and 
complete satisfaction, the terms which Great Britain offered. If 
peace had been the object it should have been received with good 
will, but in lieu of this, our Minister told Mr. Erskinc, after agreeing 
to the terms, " that it would have been for the honour of his " Britan- 
nic Majesty to have punished Admiral Berkeley." 

Admit the fact thus offensively alledged, if you choose : — Admit it 
was disreputable in his Britannic Majesty not to punish Admiral 
Jk'rkeley : — Still we agreed to accept of a satisfaction tvithout it — and 
if a good understandiiig had been wished or expected, we ought to 
have al)staiacd from such offensive terms. 

It cannot be necessary to men of sentiment to add, that to say that 
it would have been 7)iO/r to his Britannick Majesty's honour to \r^\y, 
dene a certain thing is tantamount to saying that to omit don, g it is 
dishonovrab'e. 



19 

Is this the administration which is so alive to the insuks of Mr. 
aackson, which no man can perceive and no man point out ? 

The fact is well known, that when these expressions were read m 
the British Parliament all the bitter distinctions of party were melted 
away,and dissipated in one common sense of indignation at an unmerited, 
unprovoked and deliberate insult, utix moment oi affected reconciliation. 

Mr. Erskine has never found a defender in Parliament : No, nor 
even in the prostituted vehicles of the opposition. 

Where then do we find the evidence of sincerity of our govern- 
ment ? In making a treaty without demanding the powers of the 
ap-ent ? In forming a convention with a man who stated that he was 
vfolatuig his instructions ? Or in the unprecedented affrontive lan- 
guage made use of after a compromise had been agreed to ? 

In the present nianber I have only time to add one more proof to 
those I have already adduced of insincerity. It is a fact, that although 
this arrangement was made with Great Britain, all the democratic pa- 
pers continued the same virulent abuse of that government which 
they had used when we were on the eve of a war. 

But a more material fact is, that Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the 
Treasury ; Mr. Seaver, democratic member of Congress from Nor- 
folk, on the 4th July, at Dedham ; and the marshal of this district, are 
said, all of them, before the disavowal of Great Britain was known hi 
this country, to have publicly declared that they feared the agreement 
would not be ratified, because Mr. Erskine had exceeded his powers. — 
How did these gentlemen divine this ? If from our Cabinet the infor- 
mation was derived, what becomes of their sincerity, what of their 
honesty in clamoring against Great Britain for an act which their own 
consciences hud taught them to expect ?* 



No. VL 



The Origin, Progress and Issue of Mr, Erskine's 
Arrangeme7it. 
ANOTHER circumstance, the tendency of which is to prove the 
insincerity of our Cabinet, in the agreement Avith Mr. Erskine, is the 
appointment of Mr. Adams, as minister to Russia. I have been 
astonished that so little consequence has been attached to this meas- 
ure, which in any country of Europe, would have excited the most 
curious inquiry, and the most serious alarm. The time in which his 
his nomination was^rsr made, the knowledge that a serious coalition 
had hecn just then formed to destroy the commercial power of Great 
Britain — the illegal and unauthorised appointment of Mr. Short, by 
Mr. Jefferson, at such a juncture — the nearly unanimous refusal to 

* Mr. Prince, marshal of this District, has published a note in which lie 
VLdmiis his prophetic spirit, but denies that he derived his information from 
Washington. No man could be so weak as to suppose that the Cabinet held a 
direct correspondence with Marshal Prince. — There are a thousand ways of 
communicating- facts and opinions, without confiding^ in the discretioti of 
every inferior officer. 



20 

sanction that appointment — the solemn vote of the senate on the 
motion of Mr. I.loyd, (one of the most intelligent merchants in either 
branch) " that any mission to Russia Wdsineu-fiidient and unrieccsmry." 
The conviction in the mind of every intelligent man, that this vote of 
the Senate was correct, are all of them proofs that this measure has 
some object beyond lis, first appearance. We have passed thirty years 
3afely and prosperously without a minister to Russia ; our trade to 
that country inconsiderable in itself, was perfectly well managed 
v/ithout any Consul, and was certainly sufficiently secure with an able 
Consul General. Russia is not an important naval power ; and it is 
on the ocean alone that the theatre of American politics is erected. 

AVhen therefore Mr. Jefferson, at a moment of hostility with Great 
Britain, nominated a minister to Russia ; when he selected for that 
purpose the man, the most completely pledged of any citizen in the 
United States — the man who had justified the Berlin decrees as 
merely retaliatory on the British rule of 1756, all prudent men stood 
appalled. 12ven an obedient Senate, so complaisant in general to the 
executive, could not discern the expediency of multiplying our 
Foreign lelations. A momentary compunction seemed to take pos- 
session of the party, which had for so many years opposed the exten- 
sion of our diplomatic connections. 

Mr. Jefferson ivas disgraced — The Senate almost unanimously- 
voted that any mission to Russia was inexpedient. Without doubt 
mtny of them thought that to multiply and to draw closer our connec- 
tions wuh th.e Allies of France would tend to increase the diff^iculties 
and impediments to a good understanding with Great Britain. 

An ordinary man, like the ivriter of this article, would have supposed 
It an insult, if not a breach of privilege, for a President to repeat the 
same proposition in three or four months to the same public body 
which had rejected it — it would seem to be still more extraordinary, 
that a moment should be selected for this purpose, when we had just 
concluded a ])relinunary treaty with Great Britain (if the same had 
been sincerely concluded,') and when we expected soon to discuss and 
r.ettle the remaining disputes with that nation. No man could doubt, 
that the tendency of such a measure was to excite the jealousy of the 
British Court. " What, would a British minister say, does America 
at the moment of tendering to us the olive branch, arm the deceitful 
stranger with the shar/iest thorns ? Is she not content with the offen- 
sive and indecorous language in which she has clothed her offers, but 
does she at this m.oment, court an intimacy with one of our enemies, 
with whom during her whole political existence, she has hitherto had 
no political connection ? 

The mission to Russia, when considered in all its views, does not 
; ugur a sincere disi)osition to conciliate Great Britain — and cannot be 
defended unless some person can shew, against the exjiress vote of 
the Senate, that the measure was highly necessary and expedient. 

Another fact, the tendency of which is to prove that our Cabinet 
had no expectation or wish that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine 
should take effect, is the conduct of Mr. Madison and of Congress ?X 
ihc June session. 



21 

Mr. Madison, if you take Mr. Evskine's ^rsz; statement to his ovm 
Goverament, had assured that minister, that if Great Britain would 
repeal her Orders, Ave would take dele -with her against those nations 
-which kept in force decrees infringing the rights of neutrals and of 
Great Britain. 

When called upon by our government to explain, the submissive 
and suppliant Mr. Erskine, still persists that Mr. Madison told him^ 
that although he could not answer for Congress, yet that there was no 
doubt but that Congress would honestly fulfil this implied stipulation, 
and would enforce our laws against the offenduig power. 

What was the fact ? Mr. Madison not only fails to recommend it 
in his speech, but Congress neglect to include Holland, though within 
the British orders, though within the absolute dominion of France, 
though enforcing laws injurious both to our own rights and those of 
Great Britain. What apology is made for this breach of faith ? Shall 
nve say that Mr. Madison's suggestions amounted to no pledge ? Did 
they not bind himself, at least, to the recommendation ? What is the 
excuse set up for this violation of a private understanding ? Mr. 
Smith tells us, that it was less important to Great Britain because 
Holland excluded us from her ports. This if it had been true would 
have been a singular reason for opening our trade Avith her, but it 
■was not correct — She has never excluded our ships freighted with 
certain productions of our own country, unless they came within the 
provisions of the Dutch decree, which copied the decrees of Berlin 
and Milan. 

Thus we see that if the arrangement with Mr. Erskine had been 
deemed by Mr. Madison a serious one, he has very ill fulfilled the 
poor and narrow conditions which he had persuaded Mr. Erskine to 
accept in lieu of those to which he was directed to assent. 

Let us now say ?Lfeiu words upon the rejection of the agreement by 
Great Britain, for a few only, with the remarks we have before made, 
will suffice. 

Great Britain would have had a right to have refused to ratify the 
agreement even if Mr. Erskine had pursued his instructions, because 
he was not vested with ^/i////iOii'ers, and she would only have been 
obliged to say to us that he had no sufficient authority. 

This is supported by the quotation from Vattel, made by our own 
Civilian, Mr. Smith, and which is in fact, and is to be presumed to be 
the strongest case he can cite — Vattel says that agreements and treaties 
made in virtue of a full }io%ver are binding. Now this implies neces- 
sarily that if they are not made in virtue oi a. full power, they are not 
binding. 

That the General letter of credence of even a resident Minister 
plenipotentiary is not a full power, we have the testimony of all the 
great civilians, but of none who deserve so much weight in this case^ 
as that of the very learned Doctor in Law, Thomas Jeffi^rson, Avhose 
authority we cited in a Note to No. IV. 

But Great Britain is not so mean and ungenerous as to put her 
disavowal on the mere want of power. She says " I will not imitate 



22 

'' youv example in the case of the treaty made by Messis. Alunioc- 
" and Pinkney. The simple want of authority would not induce me 
^' to reject a treaty just and equal. But I reject it because 7ny servant 
" broke his orders. Whether he broke them or not, is immaterial to 
" you. It is sufficient that he had no power, and you never even 
" asked him whether he had, which you know is the established 
*' usage, and which usage you yourselves adopted against our former 
" minister Hammond, It is therefore, doubly unreasonable that you 
" should complain of a measure, which I was, on two principles, both 
«' equaUij recognized by the laws of nations, authorized to adopt." 

That Great Britain did not, as she well might have done, repose 
upon the general incomlietency of Mr. Erskine's powers, who not only 
did not possess Vifiill poiver.) but of whom our government, contrary 
to their own former conduct^ did not demand any evidence of author- 
ity, we have the declaration of Mr. Jackson, who states, that although 
Mr. Erskine had 7io powers to conclude such an arrangement, yet that 
his Britannick Majesty did not disavow his agreement on that ground, 
but solely because, though acting without powers, he violated, in a 
gross manner, his instructions. These instructions are now before 
the public. Every man knows that they were violated, in letter and 
in spirit — and our ov.n government do wot pretend to deny this point. 
But there is one circumstance worthy of notice. The British Cabi- 
net had no confidence in the talents of Mr. Erskine — -they not only 
bound him down to precise terms, but they required that even if 
these terins were complied with., still that they should not be held till 
they should receive in England, an official note, declaring the consent 
of our government to them. This was tantamount to a positive reser- 
vation of a ratification. Shall we be told, that our government did not 
hiow this ? That tlie instructions were not communicated in extenso ? 
I answer, this is not the fault of Great Britain. She authorised her 
minister to shew them, and we were bound by the law of nations to 
demand his authori'y., as we have proved by the letter of Mr. Jeffer- 
son to Mr. Hammond. 

This brings mc to the last remark, which I have to make in proof, 
ihat the agreement with Mr. Erskine was not sincere, but was intend- 
ed to be used as a source of new difiicuUies, and to be the apology for 
u rupture. 

If that arrangement had been made bona fide, and with an honest 
disposition to bring about a solid peace witli Great Britain, the disa- 
vowal of it wovdd have been received as all nations receive events of 
tliat sort, v.ithout emotion or complaint. As two perfect reasons, as 
we have shewn, existed to justify Great Britain in rejecting the agree- 
ment, for neither of winch was she accountable to us further than to 
.\tate them., it was suHicient for her to make this known to us through 
any channel. I shall, on a future occasion, consider the high mettled 
and fastidious ground taken by om* government, that a special envoy 
should be sent with a special power, with a certain technical form of 
words, and should make a formal procession to the Capital in a peni- 
tential sheet, to apulo-;;izc for an act which we and all other nations 



23 

have done without any apology— in short, to apologize for the neglect 
of our own ministers in not demanding Mr. Ersknie's powers. 

But I cannot quit this part of my subject, which is now completed, 
without one further remark, that it is somewhat smgular, that our 
National sensibility should be so local or personal— That while France 
is allowed to kick us from Finland to the pillars of Hercules, without 
provoking any other observation, than that the ''Jiosture of our affairs 
is not changed, we should be so extremely sore— so tremblingly alive 
to all the injuries of Great Britain, that even Shakespeare, m his 
Mercutio, has given us but a tame sketch x)f our irritable sense of honor. 
Whether a repeal of a proclamation shall be dated to-day or to-morrow ; 
Avhether an explanation is made through our resident minister— or 
the offending minister, or his successor, or whether, though the suc- 
cessor makes the explanation, he uses a legal form of words for that 
purpose, and lastly, whether, in stating what we admit to be true, he 
adopts a larger word, or a more copious expression, or deduces an 
inference amounting to an intimation of an insinuation, is in our very 
valiant temper, sufficient cause for the dismissal of a minister, and 
for incurring the horrors of an interminable war. 



No. VII. 



Mr. J A CKSo:^^s Dismissal — Its important Consequences — 
Its pretended Justijication. 

WE come now to the consideration of the most momentous ques- 
tion which the United States have e-uer been called upon to decide 
since the declaration of Independence : and it is astonishing with 
\vhat an apparent apathy this question is considered by men of all 
ranks, of all grades of understanding and acquirements. They seem 
to treat it as if it bore some degree of resemblance to the questions 
sv hich have for several years past agitated the public mind, and as if 
it was certain that, like them, it would end in noisy and vapid decla- 
mation. It is, however, no less a question than that of a ruinous war, 
or a disgraceful peace. The position in which the late dismissal of 
Mr. Jackson has placed the United States is one from which they can 
never extricate themselves Avilh hojiciir ; and they may esteem them- 
selves the favourites of Heaven if they escape from it without 5.eiious 
calamity. Our fate no longer depends on the wavering, noisy, and 
vapouring councils of boisterous demagogues, but upon the policy 
and prudence of another nation, upon whose good-will we ctin no 
longer calculate — Let us explain ourselves. 

The right to dismiss a ioieign Minister for indecorous or offensive 
conduct, (however it may have been questioned, and indeed denied, 
as we shall shew, by Mr. Madiicn's pirty,} cf,n never be doubted by 
any man acquainted with public law, nor will be contested by any 



24 

person who is alive to the true interests and honour of his counti-y. Ii 
the oflence is palpable and unquestionable, no nation which regards 
its character, and which wishes to preserve pence, will hesitate to 
recall its minister who has been guilty of such an ofience. The har- 
mony of the two nations is not in such a case in any degree affected. 

But if the case be a questionable one, and especially if the time, 
conduct, and circumstances be such as to render it obvious that is v/as 
either intended as an affront, or as an excuse for the rupture of nego- 
ciatioi), it becomes impossible for the injured nadou to recall his 
Minister, to disgrace him in the eyes of t!\c world, and to renew the 
interrupted intercourse. 

If such a dismissal be, moreover, accompanied with circum- 
stances of insult and aggravation, war may be expected to follow ; 
and Mr. Giles, in this case, with a spirit truly /iro/i/ietic, has predicted 
that such will probably be the result. — Why that gentleman should 
have presumed it, if Mr. Jackson has been rightfully dismissed for 
his own personal misconduct, we leave to the public to decide. 
Should, however, Great-Britain not deem it for her interest, in this 
instance to declare war, let us consider what will be oivn firedicamcnt ? 
We pretend that we have sustained great and unexampled wrongs,— 
Great-Britain will not send us another Minister, if, (as it will appear) 
Mr. Jackson has been guilty of no breach of decorum. We shall 
be compelled, from the invariable usage of nations, and respect to our 
national character, to recall Mr. Pinkney. What then will become 
of our long-continued complaints ; of those deep and premeditated 
injuries with which our present administration have so frequently filled 
the public ear, and with which they have so often and so successfully 
inflamed the public passions ? 

Are we to submit to them, without redress ? or, if we are, shall wc 
forego, forever, the advantages arising from a free commerce not 
only to Great Britain, but to all the countries to which she now inter- 
dicts our entry ? War then on our side seems to be our only choice, 
imless we shall jirefer to submit. Great-Britain never can send anoth 
or IVIinister to this country ; and surely our government never will 
make another advance to her. — It would be a concession that wc 
were in the wrong, to which so lofty a pride as that which dictated 
the dismissal of Mr. Jackson, for merely an intimation not perceptibl? 
to ordinary understandings, could never submit. 

Such then are the serious consequences of this measure — conse- 
quences far more important than any which have yet followed from 
any measure adopted I)y any administration in our country. Either 
war upon us by Great-Britain, war by us against her, or a submission 
to all her alledged wrongs, and a total suspension of intercourse 
with her, until either she or ourselves shall so far forget our pride 
and honour as to coiu't a renewal of intercourse. 

Nov/, serious and alarming as this position is, no honourable man, 
no man who regards the rights and dignity of his country, will regret 
the consequences, if the measure was called for 'ny our honour — if 
not, let the censure fall upon those persons who rashly advised so 



ii5 

YiA^iy and momentous a step. The adniinistralion have defended this 
lueasui-e by the example of General Washington in the case of 
Gc/iei — the allusion is an unfortunate one, on eveiy accovnit. I had 
intended to cite this case at^ainst /Ar///, and I could not have dreamed 
that Mr. Madison or his friends woiUd have had the imprudence to 
induce us to take a retrospective view of that di&gracL'/al fiCcw — 
That tliese men, who now affect to be so alive to the national honour, 
who arc so ready to take offence at a loo)., a word, an intdiiuuuon^ 
should remind us of a period in which not only the honour of the coun- 
try was trampled under foot, but in which me loreign agents who in- 
sulted us were honoured, feasted, and set up in Jwstile array by our 
own citizens against their own government, is among the mar\ elious 
events of tlie evil times on which we have fdlen. Genet was not divniss- 
ed, liis recall only was requested, and his personal and political friends, 
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison knew it full well ; Genet was 
not requested to be recalled merely for any insulting language towards 
our own government : — It was for a long continued series of overt 
af(fs, for which he might have been tried and punished, that Mr. Genet 
was suspended : — It was for assumhig the functions of his office be- 
fore he was accredited ; for promoting military expeditions in our 
territory ; for resisting the executions of the laws ; for openly defy- 
ing the executive authority, to which were only siifieraddtd personal 
insults, which were repeated for several months before the pru- 
dence and patience of General Washington were exhausted. Mr. 
Jefferson and Mr. Madison can tell, why the President was so for- 
bearing. They can tell us how large, how powerful ^Vas the combina- 
tion of their friends, against our government and in favour of Genet. 
Let vis now proceed to examine the concealed insult, which is said 
to LURK soMEWHERK in Mr. Jackson's correspondence. There 
were several interesting circumstances attending the disclosure of this 
pretended ulsult, which led many judicious men to suspect, that the 
u-ansaction would not bear the closest examination. The people at 
large are not capable of expending the time and devoting the aiten- 
tion necessary to the perusal and comparison of a long correspondence 
expressed in the studied language of diplomatic men. It was known 
to the administration, that if an unequivocal declaration should be 
made to the public, that INIr. Jackson had insulted our government, 
this would reach every head, and inflame every heart in the United 
States, while the slow and laborious vindication or disproof of such a 
charge, received with distrust, into minds already prejudiced, would 
make but a feeble progress. The act of publishing the statement of 
Mr. Jackson's insult in the Mitional InttUigniccr was the act of the 
government : That statement proves to be a copy of the official note 
nddreiised to Mr. Jackfion. The government then, ten days only be- 
fore the meeting of Congress, published an account of the dismissal 
and of its pretended causes and called upon the people to resent this 
conduct before any evidence of it was laid before them. The J^'ation- 
al Intelligencer endeavoured to excite the highest degree of irritation 
and succeeded in it. Finding that the public mind would become tao 
4 



26 

much excited, they changed their tone, and bejjged the people to re- 
strain their rage, and not to violate the immuniies of Mr. Jackson's 
oflice by an outrage on his person. If the formal notice of the insult 
was the act of the government, so also was this ; and yet this very 
administration make it a subject of complaint against Mr. Jackson 
that he demanded a safe conduct against the populace whom the /2a- 
tronn of the A'ational Intelligencer endeavoured to appease, and whose 
fury they appeared to dread. A second circumstance, which tended 
to excite a suspicion of unfairness, was the attempt to divert the pub- 
lic attention from the alleged insult which was the avowed cause of 
the rupture of the negotiation, to the proiwsilions pretended to have 
been made by Mr. Jackson. This was a subject more complex, more 
difficult for the people to comprehend. But the resort to it was a 
subterfuge which we shall endeavour to remove. A third circum- 
stance, which has a very suspicious appearance, is the change in the 
ter7ns of the charge brought against INIr. Jackson. We were at Jirst 
told, that he had given the lie du*ect. — Even the JVational Intelligenc- 
er led us to suppose, that he had charged the government with the 
knowledge of Air. Erskine^s instructions, of which they had declared 
they had no knowledge ; we supposed the contradiction was upon some 
plain, specific, and important fact : but as soon as Mr. Jackson's ex- 
planation appeared, it was thought necessary to write a letter to Mr. 
Pinkney, and to explain the charge. A very different view is given 
of the affair in this letter from the first statement in the Intellige?icer. 
This leads us to a belief that if Mr. Jackson's circular had not reach- 
ed the press, we should never have seen Mr. Smith's very extraordi- 
nary letter to Mr. Pinkney. Under circumstances so inauspicious to 
truth, did this transaction appear before the public. Let us now pro- 
ceed to shew, from the documents, that there is not even a s/iadoii' 
for the charge as it stands corrected, and dwindled down to pigmy size 
in the letter to Mr. Pinkney. The charge as it is now corrected and 
explained, may be found in the following extract from Mr. Smith's 
letter to Mr. Pinkney, of November 23d, 1809 : 

" It was never objected to him, that he had stated it as a fact, that the 
three firo/iositions in question, had bee7t submitted to me by Afr. Erskine, 
nor that he liad stated it, as made known to him by the iiistructioris of 
Mr. Canning, that the instruction to Air. Erskine, containing thosi: 
three conditions, was the only one from which his authority was derived, 
to conclude an arrangement on the ?natter to whieh it related. The ob- 
jection was, that a knowledge of this restriction of Air. Erskine, was 
imputed to this Goveryiment, and the repetition of the imputation, after 
it hud been peremptorily disclaimed." 

The aniiount of this paragraph and charge is sirhply this, that Mr. 
Jackson either by direct assertion, implication, ii^ference, or insinua- 
tion, did citlier say or suggest ••< that our government knew that Mr. 
" Erskine had no other instructions than those which ih^y admit were 
" made known to them,"" and that he repeated this insinuation after our 
government disclaiiued such knowledge. — Had Mr. Jackson so have 
conducted he would have been not oulv insolent, but extremely weak. 



^7 

—For it would have been ridiculous in him to impute to our govern- 
ment the knowledge of such a Jiega/ivc, which it was almost impos- 
sible they co\ild have known, besides, that such an imputation would 
have been contradictory to other parts of his ow?i letters. — In his let- 
ter of the 1 1th of October, he tolls Mr. Smith " that although when he 
" left England it was believed that Mr. Erskine, had shewn his in- 
« structions in eoctcnso — yet it noAV afifimrrd he did not" l"his was a 
candid dismission of Mr. Smith's declaration on this subject ; and in 
the same letter he adds," that the letter of the 23d January, from Mr. 
" Canning to Mr. Erskine, was the only despatch by which the condi- 
" tions of an arrangement were prescribed ;" — and he adds no insinn- 
atio7i or inference that our government knew this to be the fact. On 
the contrary, the declaration to Mr. Smith in so solemn and formal a 
manner, implied, unavoidably implied that our government did not 
know that fact before. If, then, it would have been absurd and con- 
tradictory in Mr. Jackson to have insinuated such a knowledge of the 
restriction of Mr. Erskine, let us see whether in point o{fact he was 
guilty of this folly. The first instance in which any mention is made 
of the instructions of Mr. Erskine is in Mr. Jackson's first letier of 
October 1 1th. After stating that it was believed that Mr. Erskine had 
communicated his powers in extenso, when Mr. Jackson left England, 
and admitting the^ac^ unconditionally and frankly " that he had not" he 
proceeds to state, that by Mr. Erskine's letters it appeared that the three 
conditions which formed the basis of his instructions had been made 
known to our cabinet, and that all the arguments and observations upon 
those conditions by our minister had been stated by Mr. Erskine to his 
own government, from all which he infers, that the substitution of other 
articles instead of those proposed by Great Britain was a proof that the 
conditions were known to us. He only J^dds to this simple and intelli- 
gible idea, one '< remark that our government must now perceive how 
" widely the agreement difters from the conditions presribed, and of 
" course how just were the claims of Great Britain to refuse her assent 
" to it." Is there in all this the remotest intimation, inference or in- 
sinuation that our cabinet knew or might have known, or might have 
inferred that these were Mr. Erskine's only instructions ? Mr. Jack- 
son adds, that the despatch of the 23d January was the only one by 
ivhich the terms were prescribed. — This clause is simple unaccompa- 
nied with any inference of insinuation whatever ; and we assert con- 
fidently, that no other passage can be found in this first letter relative 
to this subject. In Mr. Smith's reply to this letter we ought to ex- 
pect to find not only a reproof or notice of any offensive terms, had 
there been any but a particular designation of the part which was 
deemed offensive. — Mr. Smith does express his surprise, that Mr. 
Jackson should lay so much stress on the want of complaint on the 
part of our cabinet, and on the substitution of other terms instead of 
those which Mr. Erskine was authorised to propose ; — but he does 
not intimate that Mr. Jackson had drawn from those circumstances a 
conclusion that our government had a knowledge of the restricted 
powers of Mr. Eskhie. Now, as Mr. Jackson had not in fact, as we 



28 

have shewn, drawn any sucli conchision, and as Mr. Smith did not tell 
liiin that he supposed iie had, how could that minister divine it or 
give any explanation of it ? Mr, Smith adds, " that if the government 
"had known that tne conditions presented by Mr. Erskine were the 
" only ones on which he was authorized to make the arrangement, it 
" never would have been made." This was the moment for him \o 
have toid Mr. Jackson that he understood him to in.^inuate in his first 
letter th^^t our government had such knorjledge. This was omitted. 
AV'hy ? Because Mr. Jackson had made no .such hisinuation. But if he 
had made it, it would have been no olTence until our government de- 
nierl it, which they never did till this clause was inserted hi Mr. Smith's 
letter of Oct. 1 9th. The oiTence, if any, must be found, therefore, in 
the subsequent correspondence. The next letter from Mr. Jackson 
in reply to this denial now Jirsi made by our government of their 
knowledge of the restricted nature of Mr.' Erskine's powers, is dated 
Oct. 23d : — In this letter he most dcUcately abstains from any insinu- 
ation of the knowledge of our government of Mr. Erskhie's restric- 
tions : — 'i he oriiy sentence in relation to this subject, are the follow- 
ing, and are in strict and exact conformity to the facts admitted by our 
Cdbinet. 

" These instructions (Mr. Erskine\s) I notv understand by your 
letter as well as the deductions which I took the liberty of making in 
mine., of the Wth inst. were at the time in substance, made known to 
you." 

'< You are already acquainted with that which was given (alluding to 
the communication of Mr. Canning's letter to Mr. Erskine, which %vas 
.■ihewn to Air. Pinkney,) and I have had the honour of informing you 
that it was the only one by which the conditions were prescribed. 

These arc the only sentences which affect this question, in this 
letter. It is impossible to conceive of language more clear — it is 
difficult to form an idea of expressions more respectful or less oflTen- 
sive. Vet the next we hear from Mr. Smith, on this subject, is \\\ 
the highest possiljle tone of haughtiness and affront : — He assures 
IVlr. Jackson, witliout any qualification, that his language is imfirojier 
and irrelevant, and that Mr. Jackson had insinuated which we have 
provecl he had not., that our government knew that Mr. Erskine's in- 
structions did not authorise him to conclude the arrangement, and 
that he must not repeat the insinuation which he had never made. 
Mr. Jackson had insinuated only what our government admitted, that 
they knew the sub.sUin-e of Mr. Erskine's powers, and the only infer- 
ence he made was that his Mcjesty was not held by an agreement 
which so essentially departed from them. The language of Mr. 
Jackson heretofore was not considered good cause for dismissing him, 
iMit we are told that in his la^t letter he persisted in the same insinu- 
aiions, with aggravating circumstances. In that letter wc afhrnijthat 
not one line can Ije found, alluding to the contested point. Tiieic is 
a moderation, accompanied with firmness, which Mr. Smith would do 
well to i nitate : — The oidy passage which can be pretended to refer 
'n the dispute, is the last paragraph, where iNI'-. Jackson regrets that 



29 

he should be charged in unqualified terms, with irrelevant and im- 
proper arguments, and adds, " that he should not think of uttering 
an insinuatimi, where he Avas unable to substantiate n fact.'' 

Now it is said, and said with justice, that if Mr. Jackson had made 
an improper hisinuation before^, this was in effect, an adherence to it, 
and an offensive one. This nve admit ; — but as he had made no in- 
sinuation, as we have proved, but oi facts admitied by our Cabinet^ 
and especially as he had not made the insinuation now charged upon 
him, it was not a breach of delicacy to assert, that he had made no 
insinuations unsupported by facts. 



No. VIII. 



Mr. Smith's offensive Insinuations^ and irritating Lan- 
guage to Mr. Jackson. 

WE have shewn, that neither the original charge of insult, pre- 
ferred against Mr. Jackson, in the note, by which his functions were 
suspended, nor the milder and corrected explanations of that charge, 
in the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, can be supported by 
any fair construction of Mr. Jackson's letters. What then, is the 
result ? Why, that the certainty of a continuance of a state of irrita- 
tion and danger, and the possibility of the horrible calamities of War, 
are to be endured by the people of the United States, on account of 
an imaginary insult, of such extreme tenuity, of such an impercepti- 
ble and intangible form, that it requires all the sophistry of Mr. Giles, 
in a speech of twenty pages, to present a faint and feeble picture of 
it. — An insult of so subtle and ch?ingeable a nature, that eveiy man 
who v/ould point it out, varies in the selection of the offensive passage,- 
and in the construction of the parts selected. 

Who are the men, who would thus inflame the Nation to mortal 
hatred and inextinguishable rage ? Are they the same persons, who, 
in a moment of pretended reconciliation, told his Britannic Majesty, 
that Iris offer of reparation for the Chesapeake did not comport with 
his honour or dignity ? Or arc we to be hurried on to our ruin, under 
the belief, that sensibility and rights are all on our side, and that while 
the sovereign of another nation shall not even look awry at us, we may, 
iv'ithout offence, impeach his good faith, and question his honour ? 

Let us endeavour, for the first time, towards Great Britain, to adopt 
the golden rule of Christianity, which, if it be not respected as an 
authority in our Cabinet, it is hoped, has yet some influence with 
the sober and religious part of our people ; and while we are courting 
a war, on account of pretended insults, in the letters of Mr. Jackson, 
let us see wliether the language of M r. Smith be wholly faultless — in 
short, whether it be not unnecessarily affrontive. 

The correspondence, in the late case, was opened by Mr. Smith, 
by his letter of the 9th of October, and we doubt, whether so abrupt, 



30 

SO rude aiid oftei-ssive a note can be found in the whole annals of diplo- 
macy, if we except the uniform tenor of the French correspondence 
Tjith lis. 

This letter is in the nature of a manifesto, rather than of a friendly- 
inquiry. It char.^es Great Britain with perfidy — it declares, by anti' 
cipation, that shv; had no a/iolog-y for it — it alledges, that she had 
made no explanations of her conduct, but that she had accompanied 
this neglect hy new and insulting pretensions. It goes further, — It 
specifics tho' c pretensions, though, as we shall hereafter shew, they 
had been absolutely denied by the British minister, in previous con- 
versations, and in fact, no such propositions have ever been suggested 
by him. After all these charges, as unqualified, unmeasured and in- 
decorous in their language as they turn <j\it to be unfounded in point 
of fact, the common rules of diplomacy would have required that Mr. 
Smith should have conckidcd, whioli he did not, with some expres- 
sions of confidence in the disjiosition of his Britannic Majesty to re- 
concile his conduct with good faith, and with the principles of justice. 
These proles-ions, insincere enough, to be sure, are a species of 
counterfeit coins, of little or no intrinsick value, but which usage has 
vendered an indispensable medium of Diplomatick Intercourse. And 
ivho ought more scrupulously to adhere to the use of them, than our 
inflammable rulers, who can calmly hazard the existence of a Nation, 
for a supposed failure of etiquette ? 

If Mr. Jackson had replied to this letter of Mr. Smith, (which, we 
must recollect, was the commencement of the correspondence) " that 
the temper in which Mr. Smith's letter was conceived, too much re- 
sembled the ungracious tone in which Mr. Erskine's arrangement w&3 
expressed, to leave any hope of benefit from the protraction of the in- 
tercourse," all impartial men would have thought him justified. 

That it must have had, and that in fact, did have, as was doubtless 
intended, an inauspicious and unfavourable effect on Mr. Jackson's 
mind, and on the future style of the negotiation, there can be no doubt. 
It is not a favourable mode of commencing a settlement of antient 
controversaries, to begin with a blow. 

The second instance of indecorum on the part of Mr. Smith, which 
falls very little short of contradiction, and whatever it may fail of amount- 
ing to that, may be fiirly placed to the account of prevarication, is of 
vast importance, because rlie satae insult, if it be one, to the British 
minister, is repeated by Mr. Madison in his message. It is the alle- 
gation made in Mr. Smith's first letter, that he learned with surprise 
and regret, that Mr. Jackson, so far from coming prepared to make 
explanations for the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement, had 
been directed to insist upon terms, inadmissible and affrontive. 

Mr. Smith represented in this introductory letter : — 

1st. 'I'hat Mr. Jackson had no instruction^ to make any explanation 
of 'he disavowal of Mr. I'rskinc's agreement. 

2dly. That in the affair of the Chesapeake, he had no authority to 
assi;;.! any reasons for tiie refusal to accept that part of Mr. Erskine's 
agreement, but that liis powers were limited merely to tending a note 



offering the terms of satisfaction, on condition, that he should receive 
a simultaneous answer from our governnent, accepting those terms 
as satisfactory. 

3dly. That he was not authorised to offer any new. proposals for the 
repeal of the Orders in Coimeil of Nov. 1807. 

And Lastly^ That it was the intention of the British Government, 
not to revoke those orders, but upon the three famous conditions, 
which were declared inadmissible by our Government, and which had 
formed the basis of Mr. Erskine's instructions. 

Now I propose to prove, not only that this statement was in every 
respect, except as to the third proposition, untrue and unsupported by 
the correspondence ; but that it was offensively adhered to^ after Mr. 
Jackson's explicit declarations to the contrary, not only by Mr. Smith, 
but by Mr. Madison in his message. 

If this shall be made out satisfactorily — if it shall be proved in a man- 
ner to defy contradiction, or refutation, then it will follow, that om' 
Government are chargeable, not only with an unfair, but a disreputa- 
ble misrepresentaton of the views of the British Cabinet, and with a 
formal contradiction of Mr. Jackson's solemn asseveration. — It should 
here be remembered, that Mr. Jackson is the representative of a Sov- 
reign power, which treats with us on equal terms, and that to call in 
question his veracity, is to doubt the veracity or honour of his Soy- 
reign. 

Let us take up each point distinctly, and in the order in which Mr. 
Smith states them. 

1st. Did Mr. Jackson tell Mr. Smith that he had no instructions to 

offer any explanation of the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's agreement • 

and has he failed to make any ? — . 

Mr. Jackson admits, that he had made no formal communication of 
tl: : motives for the disavowal, for which he assigns two reasons. 

1st. That Mr. Canning had hastened with an ardent zeal to satisfy 
our Government before any complaint had been made by our minister, 
to expUun to Mr. Pinkney the motives of the disavowal ; and this not 
by an empty and insincere declaration of Mr. Erksine's having violated 
his orders, but by a candid disclosure of his actual instructio7is.—T\i\% 
was more than the laws of Nations required— It would have been suf- 
ficient to have declared, he had no full powers, but Great Britain wa^ 
unwilhng that her good faith should be called in question—She would 
not defend herself on ordinary and sufficient ground— She produces 
the private instructions, and demonstrates the violation of them in 
toto.— Those instructions moreover, were supposed to have emanated 
trom our own proposals, and she would have been justified, in retort 
mgthe breach of faith upon us; but she delicately abstained.— She 
confined herself to her own justification, and by the laws of nations, by 
our own former example in former treaties made by us, she was fully 
exonerated. "' 

Secondly. The second reason for not having offered an explicit de- 
tence of the disavowal through Mr. Jaskson, was, that Mr. Erskine 
nad been directed to make it, and it was supposed, when Mr. Jackson 



'^O 



uaiuc away, that he had done it. — Great Briliiin, he dcclul•e^>, was un- 
wilUngto rest so long under the imputation of a want of good faith, and 
therefore instantly ordered her minister here to explun her motives. 

One would suppofic this would satisfy the most fastidious and capti- 
ous Government, but Mr. Jackson, anxious to remove every possible 
objection to an amicable adjustment adds, 

" But, If heijond iMs, any incidental discussion, or explanation. 
" should be Avished for by|this Government, I came fully prepared to 
*< enter into them — I even consider them to /lavc taken filace between 
" us. — I have certainly derived great satisfaction from the several 
ii hours we have spent in conference on theae subjects." 

We here perceive,that the explanations had in fact been made, 
though not in the formal manner which the scrupulous nicety of our 
Government, required — We see moreover, that he came fully author- 
ized to supply whatever was deficient in the explanations of iVIr. Can- 
ning or Mr. Erskine. 

To this fair offer Mr. Smith replies in his letter of Oct. 19, that his 
objection was not so much to the want of explanation as to the failure 
of that solemnity and formality which such an important case requir- 
ed — Let us examine this principle — We make a bargain Mith a minis- 
ter without demanding his powers — It appears not only that he pos- 
sesed none, but that he had violated his positive and clear instructions. 
— The law of nations in such a case requires no apology from the na- 
tion which refuses to conHrm the agreement of its unauthorised and 
culpable agent — We on the other hand demand not an explanation 
which was given to us and which we liad no right to require, but a 
solemn and formal embassy, and a penitential and apologetic document 
fi'om a Nation, which had only exercised its acknowledged rights. 

We may judge from this circumstance of the temper with which 
this Negociation has been conducted, and how impossible it is, that 
Great Britain should ever satisfy our Cabinet. " We should not be 
contented, said Mr. Ames, with a temper like this, if the Treaty left 
King George his Island, not even if he stipulated to pay rent for it." 

But Mr. Smith, not content with'this haughty requisition, proceeds, 
in the same letter, to contradict Mr. Jackson. 

" As you have disclaimed any authority to offer exjilanations for tht, 
disavowal," h.c. [See page 47 of the printed documents.] 

Mr. Jackson, however, irritated by this repetition, after his express 
offer to make any additional explanation wliich might be deemed 
necessary, hi place of recriminating language, chooses the more 
prudent course of taking away all pretext from his opponent, by stat- 
ing formally the grounds of tlic disavowal. 

" I have tlierelbre no hesitation in informing you, that his Majesty 
was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and 
Mr. F.rskine, because it was concluded in ziohiiion of that gentleman's 
instructions, and ultogelher ivithout auihorlfi/, to agree to the terms oi 
it." 

Here one would sujjpose this ([ucstion at rest. The true, theonly, 
and two sufficient reasons were assiiyiurd whicli ought to have satisfied 
any impaiiial and honourable mind. 



Still the pertinacity of our minister'd'ul not cease. — Still it was 
deemed necessiuy to affront his Britannic Majesty, through i/is rep- 
resentative. In VI r. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkncy, (page 82, of the 
printed documents) he says, that besides iVI r. Jackson's iyidistinct and 
reluctant explanation of the reasons for the disavowal, he did not make 
his proposal till he had made such progress in his offensive insinua- 
tion as made it proper to wait the issue of his reply about to be given 
to it. 

It is here seen, that this most distinct, plain, correct and forcible 
explanation — an explanation the most perfect that could be given, 
couched in distinct and appropriate language, to wit: that Mr. Ers- 
kine had no authority, and had violated his instructions, is declared to 
be reluctant and inexplicit. Nor did the misrepresentation and con- 
tradiction end here. It ascended to a higher source — jVJr. Madison, 
long after this, referring solely to this point, declares in his Message, 
that " It could not be doubted that the new minister could at least be 
charged with conciliatory explanations." 

" Reasonable and universal as this expectation was, it also has not 
been fulfilled." 

We now pass to the second charge of Mr. Smith against Mr. 
Jackson, and the British Cabinet, that M r. Jackson not only assigned 
no reason for the disavowal of that part of Mr. Erskine's arrangement 
which regarded the Chesapeake, but that he had only proposed to 
tender a note offering a satisfaction which should be simultaneous 
with our acceptance of the satisfaction. 

This charge in its Jirst branch is totally unfounded, and in the 
second part of it, the ground taken by the British minister is perfectly 
defensible not only by the law of nations, but by the circumstances 
which attended their former offer of satisfaction for this unauthorised 
injury. 

1st. Then, the first part of the charge that Mr. Jackson, did not 
eome prepared to assign any reason for the rejection of this part of the 
agreement, is unfounded. 

JVJ r. Jackson in his first letter, declares, " that he was authorised to 
renenv the offer made by Mr. Erskine, notwithstanding the ungracious 
manner in which it had been formerly received. — You have said, 
•\ddressing Mr. Smith, that you so fully understood the particulars of 
that offer, that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate them here." 

This clause tenders sficcif cully the terms, because >: r. Erskine's 
arrangement was in our own possession, and Mr Smhh had declared 
his full knowledge of them. It does more : It assigns the reason why 
that part of the agreement was not fulfilled — " because of the ungra- 
cious manner in which it was accepted." 

. We have shewn in a former number, in what the ungraciousness 
of this manner consisted — but shall it be insisted that Mr. Jackson 
was bovtnd to repeat the offensive terms ? If a man calls me a liar or 
a thief, is it not enough for me to allude to Jiis offensive epithets, but 
must I be compelled to repeat the outrageous expressions ? 



34 

But Mr. Jackson is more explicit ; he tells Mr. Smith " that his 
Majesty -would be justified in rejecting that agreement not only on 
account of the form in which his Minister had tendered it, but of 
the manner in which that tender had been received" He adds, 
" that he had elucidated that observation by a reference to the 
particular expressions which made the terms of satisfaction appear 
unacccfitable to the American government, at the very moment 
■when they were accepted." 

The just and honourable pride of Mr. Jackson forbad his repeat- 
ing to the world the insulting expressions, but an American who 
thinks as I do, that our government put an unnecessary impedi- 
ment in the way of adjustment, is restrained by no such delicacy. 

It was because our government declared " that the offer made 
by his Britannick IVIajesty did not comport with his honor and dig- 
nity ;" that it was dishonorable in him to make it ; that the agree- 
ment was rejected. This is the reason assigned, and yet we are told 
this is no exjilanation. A Virginia nobleman would not hesitate to 
take away the life of a fellow-citizen on such a ground^ and yet avc 
are told this is no reasonable ground for rejecting a bargain. 

This phrase purposely introduced, shews, as Mr. Jackson says, 
that the satisfaction given Avas ^inacce jit able to our government, and 
yet we complain that this unaccefitable and insufficient satisfaction 
is withheld ! ! — Proh Pudor I ! 

The second part of this charge in relation to the Chesapeake is 
now to be considered. Is it affronti'-e to us ? Is it injurious that 
Great-Britain should insist upon having our acceptance of the sat- 
isfaction simultaneous, cotemporaneous with the offer ? Is it unrea- 
sonable that she should insist on seeing the letter agreeing to re- 
ceive the satisfaction ? We think not, because 

1st. Mr. Jackson states that this is the invariable course of Eu- 
ropean governments in like cases. 

Is this denied by Mr. Smith ? We have three letters of his, af- 
ter this assertion, and Mr. Jackson's principles are not questioned. 
' But 2dly. If no such usage had before existed, here were special 
r^iasons for the adoption of such a rule. 

Great-Britain, through Mr. Erskine, had tendered a full satis- 
faction for the Chesapeake affair, which had been accepted by us — . 
but owing to his neglect of demanding our answer and agreeing to 
it beforehand, our government had inserted the most affronti-ve 
language ever introduced into a diplomatick correspondence. Was 
it then unreasonable, that Great-Britain should be unwilling again 
to confide in our delicacy — again to repose in our sense of decorum ? 

But lastly, here was a serious controversy about to be adjusted, 
here was a trespass on our rights about to be compromised by the 
payment of money, and the acknowledgment of wrong. 

Did any prudent man ever pay his money, or tender his satis- 
faction without sechig his discharge, without reading his receipt 
in full ? If such imprudence docs not occur in private life, how 
could it be expected of a nation which had no extraordinary rea- 
son to confide in our good ivill ? 



35 

But Mr, Smith and Mr. Madison so far from confiding in these 
positive assurances of Mr. Jackson of /its fiotvers hi relation to the 
Chesapeake, and of his being clothed with the fullest authority, 
continue in the future correspondence and in the Message after 
tlie whole negotiation was closed, to insinuate that he had no com- 
petent power — that he had made no specifick offer, and that his 
intimations were accompanied with inadmissible pi'etensions on 
this point. 

I shall hei-eafter distinctly examine these pretensions which arc 
declared madmissible, but at present my object is simply to shew, 
and that I have fully done, that our Cabinet have in very indeco- 
rous language contradicted Mr. Jackson's most solemn asseverations, 
and misrepresented in a glaring manner his observations. 

As to the third charge brought against Great-Britain, that of 
having made no proposals for the repeal of the orders in council, 
it is the only one in which our Government have not come to a 
fiat contradiction of Mr. Jackson's declarations. 

But it will be seen that they do not stand on better ground as 
to tliis charge. 

It is true. that Mr. Jackson did not come authorized to receive or 
to make any other proposals for tlje repeal of the orders in council. 

And what are the reasons ? The most respectful to us, the most 
justifiable in themselves. They are, 

1 St. Because it Avould liRve been indelicate and indeed affrontive 
to renew the propositions which, although they probably first 
emanated from our Cabinet, we had seen fit to disavow and reject. 

2dly. Because we, claiming the repeal of a measure which Great- 
Britain had adopted as a just retaliation on her enemy, she had a 
right to expect that we should propose a substitute of resistance to 
her enemy which would take the place of her orders, and would 
fulfil the duty which she contended we were bound to perform in 
order to entitle us to our neutral privileges. 

But lastly, and the most important reason of all, was, that she 
had in repeated instances tried the effect of propositions in vain. 
In the case of Mr. Rose and Mr. Erskine she had stated her terms, 
and as soon as they were known we had demanded soinething 
higher which she could not grant — besides, as the last proposal 
came from her and we had rejected it, she had a right to expect a 
proposal from us." 



INo. IX. 



Mr. Smith's misrepresentation of Mr . Jackson's Let- 
ters continued: — and some Rtmarks upon the Principles 
pretended to he set up hy Great-Britain against the 
United States. 

WE pass now to the examination of the last charge preferred 
by Mr. Smith against Mr, Jackson : — 



36 

'* 7yiat he /lad dee?i instructed to insist ujion the three conditiotis 
0^ Mr. Canning, nvliich had been declared by our Government in- 
adniis&ibie." 

As this charge is still persevered in, and as it is made the chief 
cause of complaint against the British nation, it is of great im- 
portance to ascertain whether Mr. Jackson was directed to per- 
severe in these claims ; recollecting, however, that there is 
abundant evidence that our Government authorised Great-Britain 
in theirs;; instance to expect they would be conceded. 

Mr. Jackson in his first letter of Oct. 9th, in answer to this 
charge explicitly declares, " IViat he ivas not authorised to renew 
these proposals which had been found to be unaccejitable to us, and 
that he could not have made such a proposal inasmuch as it ivould 
be inconsistent with his other declaration, that he was not instruct- 
ed to make any proposal whatever on this subject^ but to await the 
jtroliositions which our cabinet might see Jit to make to Grcat-Eri- 
tain." — Mr. Smith, in his answer to this positive and explicit, 
clear and unambiguous declaration, that Mr. Jackson Avas not di- 
rected to persevere in these claims, replies, That he perceives 
that a7iy agreement on this subject must include a stijiulation on 
the jiart of the United States to relinquish the trade ivith the ene- 
mies colonies even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British 
orders for capture, and also a sanction to the enforcing of an act of 
Congress by the British ATavy." — Mr. Sjnith adds, " That a known 
determination on the part of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to 
such extraordinary pretensions would preclude the hope of success 
in the negotiation." 

It is impossible to conceive of a more paljiable contradiction, or 
a more unfair representation ; and one can hardly conceive any 
other motive for such conduct than the wish to produce, not only 
a collision with Great-Britain, but a prejudice in the minds of the 
tininformed part of the people of the United States. 

Mi\ Jackson would have been justified in replying to this insult 
in warm and intemperate language ; but he did not lose sight of 
the dignity of his office, and the interests of both countries to pre- 
serve a good understanding. To this ilat contradiction he mod- 
estly replied, in his letter of October 23d — 

" That his governjnent ordered him not to renew proposals which 
have been already declared here to be unacceptable, but to receive 
a7id discuss proposals on the part of the United States, and eventually 
to conclude a convention between the two countries. It is not of 
course intended to call upon tne to state as a preliminary to negotia- 
tion, what is the whole extent of those instructions.'''' 

From this mild and temperate answer it follows, that he was 
not instructed to insist upon the offensive conditions, but that he 
had a full power to conclude a treaty, of which though he could 
not before hand state the utmost limits, yet it Avas fairly to be in- 
ferred they were far short of the conditions which had been de- 
clared offensive, and upon which he was not authorised to insist. 



37 

So far we have unequivocal proof of the anxiety of Great-Britain 
j to close with us u/iuri any terms ; and this disclosure of her dis- 
position, and of the full powers of IVlr. Jackson to conclude a final 
adjustment of all differences, produced the very laconic and in- 
sulting letter from INlr. Smith, which put an end to the conferences. 

In answer to the secoiid solemn asseveration of Mr. Jackson, that 
Great-Britain insisted on no conditions which our Government 
liad doemed inadmissible, Mr. Smith replies on the 1st of No- 
Vt>iii;er — 

<' That it is understood that his Alajesty perseveres in requiring 
as indis/iensable conditoins an entire relinquishment of the colonial 
trade ^ and also a permission to the British navy to aid in the exe- 
cfif-ing a law of Congress." 

This it has been shewn was absolutely false ; and one would 
naturally expect to find no small degree of temper in Mr. Jack- 
son's reply — but he cautiously abstained from imitating the inde- 
corous example of Mr. Smith : — Reciting, therefore, at large this 
oiTensive clause in Mr. Smith's letter, he says — 

" This same statement is contained in your letter of the 9th inst. 
and represented as the substance of our previous conferences. In 
my answer^ I took the liberty of shelving that such a supposition 
ivas erroneous., and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23rf 
to find any suggestion of that nature. I believe^ thereforcy that by 
reference to my two letters you will find that the statement now 
AGAIN brought forward is contained in neither of them ^ that it made 
no part of my conversations with you, and that I have in no way 
given room to suppose that I ever made such a statement at all." 

Our language, though remarkable for its strength, does not 
■ furnish the means of a more direct and positive denial of a charge ; 
and one would have supposed it impossible for any man, with 
honest views, to persist in it after such unequivocal declarations. 
But Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison have disappointed us — they rely 
more upon the folly and blindness of their partizans than one could 
have conceived to be possible. 

In spite of all this evidence we are still told, with the most un- 
paralleled indelicacy, that Mr. Jackson was directed to persist in 
pretensions which our government had repeatedly declared to be 
inadmissible. 

In reviewing the whole correspondence, we discover this to be 
the result, that Mr. Jackson was ?iot authorised to insist on the 
conditions stated in Mr. Canning's letter, although they were 
known to have been previously agreed to by our own officers ; — 
that on the contrary, he was ordered to receive our proposals and 
fully empowered by special authority to conclude a treatv on such 
terms as should be mutually advantageous ;— and further, that the 
events of the war had rendered the conditions stated in Mr. Can- 
ning's letter less important to both parties, and therefore it was 
to be expected that Great-Britain would more readilv consent to' 



modify them. — All this is stated by the British Minister ; and al- 
though from our reception of all former proposals he could not 
see any benefit, nor could he be expected to state before hand the 
full extent of his instructions, yet from what he intimates it is 
unavoidably to be presumed he was directed to agree to something 
more agreeable to us than the former conditions. 

It was precisely the discovery of tins full /lower and of this dis- 
position to concession, which produced Mr. Jackson's dismissal. 
Let any impartial man peruse this ^whole correspondence, and 
he will find an invariable disposition to seek an occasion of collision 
on the part of our cabinet, and as sedulous a desire on the part of 

Mr. Jackson to avoid it One thing he must particularly notice, 

that although Mr. Jackson's offensive insinuations (if any man can 
discover them) must be found in the early part of the correspon- 
dence, yet there was not the slightest intimation of discontent on 
our part until Mr. Jackson's letter of the 23d of October disclosing 
his full powers and removing every possible obstacle to a final, 
full and satisfactory adjustment. 

It is then proved, that the sharp, irritaiin^ introductoi'y letter of 
our Secretary of State, comprising four articles of charge against 
the British Minister, was perfectly refuted in the subsequent cor- 
respondence ; but notwithstanding the British Minister's allega- 
tions they were offensively adhered to. I anticipate, that those 
outrageous partizans who exclusively arrogate to themselves the 
virtue of patriotism, will here interrupt me by saying, that the 
declarations of our Ministers are more to be relied upon by a True 
American than that of « Cofienhagen Jackson." — I grant every 
thing on this subject to national prejudice — I agree, which is as 
much as can be asked of me, that on an indifferent subject, Mr. 
Jackson, though supported hy fact and evidence, is not to be cred- 
ited by an American Patriot in opposition to Mr. Smith unsup- 
ported by ajiy proof ; but still I must humbly contend for the 
peace of our country, for the avoidance of the horrors of war, that 
where the point of discordance consists in what are or are not the 
Jirctensions ujion which Mr. Jackson does insist, that his declaration 
solemnly repeated as to the extent of his pretensions is conclusive 
-evidence of those pretensions. ^ ^ 

We shall now state one or two other instances of Mr. Smith s 
offensive, and as far as we can see, unprovoked harshness towards 
Mr. Jackson, the representative of his Britannic Majesty. 

Mr. Smith, most unaptly and unfortunately, had cited a case 
from Vattel, to shew that Great-Britain had no right to reject the 
arrangement with Mr. Erskine.— That case was, unhappily, most 
directly against our side : It went to prove, that " where a bargain 
was made by a minister in virtue oifull /lowers it could not be re- 
jected without solid and weighty reasons." 

Mr. Jackson turned both parts of this quotation against Mr. 
Smith, and with unanswerable force : — 



39 

1st. That Mr, Erskine had not as Mr. Vat t el supposes in his 
quotation^ full powers. 

2diy. That his Majesty had solid and weighty reasons for the 
rejection — to wit., the total violation q/" instructions — the failure to 
obtain any of the conditions or objects expected by the agreement. 

How docs Mr. Smith reply to these forcible objections ? — By 
a sarcasm which partakes as much of temper as of weakness 

'■*■ I understand^ Sir, (says he to Mr. Jackson ) for the first time, 
that you object to Mr. Rrskine^s want of full powers. If that be 
an objection, the same applies to yourself, and we ought not to have 
heard you as long as we have done, because you have exhibited no 
full poAvers." 

This was an admission of the principle ; for if it had been true 
that a minister plenipotentiary ex officio had a right in all cases 
to bind his sovereign, it would have been the most natural, the 
most perfect, and certainly a less insulting answer. 

But Mr, Smith's reply was defective on another ground, as 
proved by the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
Hammond, cited by me in a former number : — For though a full 
power is requisite to conclude and sign, yet a general letter of 
credence is sufficient to negociate. Thus in common life we are 
satisfied to make a bargain with a reputed attorney, but when 
we come to take the deed or contract, we require and we exam- 
ine the letter of attorney — In this case Mr. Jackson was only pav- 
ing the way to a treaty : — It was therefore premature and indeco- 
rous to demand his powers : — It was still more than that to de- 
mand them in so taunting a manner ; — but, what is still worse, 
Mr. Jackson declares that he had long before this verbally stated 
to Mr. Smith that he possessed such full powers. To these very- 
irritating remarks of Mr. Smith's, which one would have ex- 
pected would have roused the utmost resentment of a haughty 
man, as Mr. Jackson has been represented by our democrats, he 
cahnly replied, in his letter of the 4th of November — 

" That he was surprised at the transition by which it appeared 
to Mr. Smith that this part of the subject was connected with the 
authority empowering him to negociate with Mr. Smith. It will 
not, (says Mr. Jackson) escape your recollection that I informed 
you, at a very early period, that in addition to the usual credential 
letter his Majesty had been pleased to invest me with a full power 
under the great seal of his kingdom, for the express purpose of 
concluding a treaty of convention. I well remember your testify- 
ing your satisfaction at the circumstance, and I now add, that 
whenever it suits your convenience I am ready to exchange my 
full power against that ivith which you shall be provided for the 
progress of the negociation." 

Thus we see that the lacerating taunt of Mr. Smith was not 
only unprovoked, but in face of a positive knowledge, that Mr. 
Jackson was furnished with special and plenary powers. 



40 

One would imaj^inc that it would be impossible, in a I'ree coun- 
try, a country enjoying the privileges of the press, for a Minister 
to question, after such a declaration, Mr. Jackson's pov/ers, which 
such Minister had a right at the very moment to demand and ex- 
aminc. — But we shall find that it is more easy to palm oft" an impos- 
ture in this Enlightened Country, than we could imagine ; — and 
the result of this affair will shew, that even when detected, its 
effects on the authors of it, will not be perceptible, unless it be 
to raise them in the estimation of their devoted partizans. 

After this offer of Mr. Jackson to shew his full povjers, Mr 
Smith says in his letter to Mr. Pinkney, of Nov. 23. 

" That although Mr. Jackson had given us to understmid that 
the ordijiary credentials^ such alone as he delivered^ could not bind 
his government^ in such a case, his proposal had neither been pre- 
ceded byi nor accompanied ivith the exhibition of other commission or 
fullpoiver." 

In this paragraph two ideas are endeavoured to be conveyed — 
1st. That Mr. Jacksoji's objection to Mr. £rskine's ordinary 
credentials as the foundation of a treaty., was an unfounded one, 
although Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison must know that it was per- 
fectly correct and supported by our own conduct in the case of Mr. 
Hammond. 

2dly. That Mr. Jackson really had ?io other power because he 
had not exhibited any. 

If any man, after reading the above, can find any means of get- 
ting rid of a direct and indecent contradiction, we shall, for the 
honour of our Cabinet, be happy to see them pointed out. 

Amidst these charges of perfidy and falsehood, advanced so 
liberally against the British Cabinet and Minister, one loses sight 
of a great number of offensive and rude clauses and injurious sug- 
gestions. It would be hardly worth our time and the public pa- 
tience to notice the strong and offensive paragraph wliich notifi- 
ed Mr. Jackson of his indiscoverable and indescribable offence ; 
but there is one sentence which, for the honor of our country, I 
hope, (some one will be able) to explain differently from its ap- 
parent meaning. In Mr. Sn)ith's letter (page 81, of the printed 
documents) he thus writes to Mr. Pinkney — 

" You will perceive that throughout the early stages of the cor- 
respondence., this case (that of the Chesapeake^ was in some re- 
spects improperly confounded with, in other improperly separated 
fx'om that of the Orders in Council." 

Now in the name of candour, what course Avas Mr. Jackson to 
take ? If he connected it with the Orders in Council., it was improp- 
er : If he separated it from them, he was equally m fault. Is it 

not then clear that Mr. Jackson could not satisfy our government 
at any rate ? This we have long known, and this the prcsaBt doc- 
uments prove beyond all contradiction — They who run, nxay read 
it — and even the blind may perceive it. 



41 

We have now finished this part of our subject — and we flatter 
ourselves redeemed the plcds^e we had given to the public. It is 
obvious from what has been said, that Great-Britain adheres to no 
offensive propositions in reUuion to her Orders in Council : — That 
those Orders rest, as they ahvays have done, on ground which 
our own Government have admitted to be correct in principle, 
that of retaliation on her enemy: — That Great-Britain Avas will- 
ing- to repeal them on the terms which her Minister assured her 
were firofiosed by us : — That finding we would not admit them 
she will not renew or insist upon them— that Mr. Jackson's rea- 
soning upon them in his letters is simply to convince us that they 
are 7iot noxu hnfiortant to either them or 21s : — And the fair infer- 
ence is, that when we propose any terms short of them, and yet 
amounting to a resistance to the French decrees, Great-Britain 
will accept them. That she had a right to expect as ?}iuch as this 
from us is certain, because Mr. Jefferson told Congress, and his 
party boasted last year, that we had made her such a7i offer ; Such 
an offer, however, never has been made and never ivill be : and 
the discovery that Mr. Jackson will agree to such a proposal, is 
the true reason why the negotiation is now broken off. 

If then, as it appears, Great-Britain does not insist upon any 
pretensions as conditions for the repeal of her orders in council 
to Avhich we cannot subscribe ; if she places it simply on the 
ground of an effectual resistance to the decrees of France, which 
we have voted shall not be submitted to, let us examine if there 
are any other pretensions of her's which should be a barrier to an 
acconnnocUitioii. 

Let us here premise, that in national controversies where there 
is neither judge, jury, nor umpire, perfect justice is not to be ex- 
pected. Neither party ought to expect, however they may claim, 
to oht^ivi every thing they may deem right. Something ought on 
both sides to be sacrificed to harmony ; and the nation which in- 
sists upon the attainment of all its pretensions cannot be consid- 
ered as being honestly desirous of peace. 

Mr. Madison tells us that Great-Britain in the affair of the 
Chesapeake insists upon pretensions which had been declared 
inadmissible. As this is the only point on which Great-Britain 
makes any pretensions, or insists on any conditions, as we have 
shcAvn,^ and as she most certainly does in this case insist on two 
preliminary points, it is important to see how far these are un- 
reasonable, and how far they are good causes for hazarding our 
peace. 

1st. She insists, " That in the record of the satisfaction which we 
shall agree to accept, a mcmorandian shall be made that our Proc- 
lamation inter dictiiig the entry of British ships of war has been re- 
pealed." 

This Mr. Madison in his covered language entitles, " J demand 
that the first step shoxdd proceed from us.'" 
6 



42 

This is not so. It is now admitted on all sides that tiie act of 
the British Admiral was unauthorised ; and of course his Govern- 
ment were only responsible for disavowal and reparation. 

The law of nature, of nations, of common courtesy, and the 
common law of the land, all require that in such a case, a recourse 
should first be had to the Master of the offending servant, and 
after he refuses to do justice reprisals may take place. 

In this instance we took the reparation into ou)- own hands : 
JFc inflicted the first punishment : — IVe deprived Great-Britain 
of her rights ; for it was her right to enter our ports so long as 
her enemy was permitted so to do. 

It was pretended that this was a mere measure of precaution : — 
If it were so, it ought to have been revoked as soon as Great- 
Britain declared her disapprobation of the act of her servant. No 
danger any longer existed any more than at the moinent when 
we suffered the proclamation to expire. 

But with Great-Britain it was different. It was absolutely im- 
possible for her to off'er aiiy terms whatever so long as this rod 
was held in terrorem over her head. On this fioint Mr. Rose's 
mission terminated. And let us ask every man of honour, if com- 
pensation was demanded of him for any act of his servant's, 
whether he would give it while the complaining party threatened to 
chastise him ? 

Between nations this is impossible : And of all the nations in 
the world, and of all the administrations which ever existed in any 
nation, ours, one of the most captious, ought to be the last to find 
fault with this objection. 

It is, I confess, truly ^ point of honor ; and the only question 
is, Which is right ? I admit that neither party which is in the 
right, ought to sacrifice this point of honor, unless for the sake 
of preserving peace, which is more interesting than any point 
of etiquette. But in this case ivc can acknowledge the repeal 
of the Proclamation without dishonour, because ive never pre- 
tended that it was a hostile measure ; but on the other hand, 
Great-Britain, who considered it an insult, could not agree to treat 
with us without a formal acknowledgment of the repeal. But, 
says Mr. Smith, this adherence to punctilio is the more unrea- 
sonable in Great-Britain, because it was well known that the Proc- 
lamation had exjiired of itself. He Was I think not aware of the 
natural answer to this, which would have been made if he had not 
sealed Mr. Jackson's lips, that if the Proclamation had exjiired, 
there could be less reason for a /^a^Jio?/ dis/iosed to /u ace to refuse to 
note that fact in the proceedings. And why this delicacy on the 
part of Great-Britain ? Because she could not com/iensate us so 
long as the record of so hoslile a measure remained against her. 

The only other inadmissible pretension of Great-Britain which 
our Cabinet urge is, 

The reservation of Great-Britain, that she willnot /laij the bounty 
to such of the sailors vjoundcd in the Chesapeake, nor will she re- 



iur7i sjtch of them as she has taken, who may appear to have been 
desertei-s /ro7n his Majesty's service, or natural born subjects of 
his Britannic Majesty. 

Now without entering ipto the question so fully settled by the 
American people, that they will not go into a contest for British 
sailors, we would simply remark, that an objection of this sort 
comes with a very ill grace from a Government, one of whose 
captains last year entered the British territories, seized a school- 
master as a deserter in the act of giving instruction in a peaceful 
village, shot him dead upon the spot, and to which officer, after a 
for7nal Court Martial, his sword has been returned with honor. 
If this does not amount to a claim of deserters, we confess we 
do not know what does. 



No. X. 



J\Ir. Madison's conduct towards France, and that of 
France towards us. The authors vindication and 
conclusion. 

« France has s/H/is, and ive have men." 

Mr. Jefferson. 
" France wants money, and must have it." 

Mr. Madison to Mr. Randolph. 
FROM the authors of such sentiments, one would not look 
for any exhibition of impartiality, or for any expressions of indig- 
nation towards France, for her accumulated wrongs — ^but from a 
man of Mr. Madison's prudence and talents, one would have ex- 
pected some appearance of decorum, some shew of independence, 
some token of an insincere desire to preserve a nominal impartial- 
ity. In reviewing the President's late niessage, with its accom- 
paniments, we are astonished to find the mask which even Mr. 
Jefferson designed to wear, superciliously thrown away. — Mr. 
Madison, secure of his office and of his popularity, disdains any 
labour, even to save appearances, and while his speech breathes 
nothing but hostility, and war towards Great-Britain, it is worse 
than silent as to the wrongs, the injuries and insults of France. 

The proofs of this partiality have been too long and too fatally 
felt, to require a very minute display of them at this moment. I 
shall confine myself to a few instances Avhich h^ve recently occurred. 
The documents which accompanied the President's message, fur- 
nish the first proof While the correspondence with the British 
Cabinet and our complaints against Great-Britain, occupy eighty 
EIGHT pages, all the evidence of our intercourse with France is 
comprised in seven. While every document in reliition to the 
British controversy is communicated at large, even down to the 
notes of the Secretary of Legation, while some parts of Mr. Ers- 
kine's letters are extracted and published twice in the same pam- 



44 

phlet in order that in one form or the other they might be sure to 
meet the publick eye, some of the publications of the letters of 
Gen. Armstrong to our Government, and of Mr. Champagny to 
General Armstrong, are mutilated extracts^ and the most matei'ial 
parts are su/i/iressed. This is not all — whole letters and the whole 
history of our late Negotiation with France are kept behind the 
curtain. 

This conduct is the more unpardonable, inasmuch as the publick 
expressed its just mdignation and its merited jealously on the at- 
tempt to suppress the French Documcfits last wintei' — How did 
Ave in that case obtain a disclosure of the disgraceful nature of our 
Negotiations with France ? By the voluntary exhibition of the Ex- 
ecutive ? No. The suppressed documents published in Boston, 
dropped down upon us we know not how — the light flashed upon 
us, we know not whence ! 

And are the American people to be always kept in this state 
of palpable blindness ? Are our Negotiations with France, sicck 
deeds of darkness that even when all hopes are gone, when abor- 
tive, when dead born, they are to be buried without examination ? 

If such shameless suppressions would have answered in ordinary 
times, shall Ave submit to them Avhen Ave are called upon to take 
the solemn alternative oi war or disgrace ? Shall Ave see the gaunt- 
let throAvn to Great-Britain, under the pretext of insults Avhich we 
cannot ficrcei-ve — shall Ave see her envoy dismissed, Avhile clcthed 
Avith full powers to complete an adjustment, declaring that he is 
not ordered to insist on pretensions Avhich we have deemed inad- 
missible, but is ready to receive and discuss our OAvn proposals, 
and yet not be alloAved to examine the conduct of Finance, Avith 
Avhom both our own and their minister allege the door of ne- 
gotiation is for ever closed ? 

The publick have been amused the last si/n?7ner, with repeated 
messages to France — several vessels have been despatched thither 
— did they not carry remonstrances, demands, or proposals ? If so, 
Avhere are they ? Why are they su/i/iressed ? While a negotiation 
is pending, reasons of state may require secrecy — but this is not 
the case. General Armstrong, in the mutilated extract of his let- 
ter of 16th Sept. last, declares that Mr. Champagny's note, Avhich 
I shall presently consider, is " a definitive ansiuer to our proposals''' 
— This note is not only definitive, but it is insulting in the extreme. 
It is not only Vifial refusal, but it is a most cutting and sarcastic 
taunt. Why should we not know then Avhat these Jirojiosals Avere, 
Avhich Mr. Aimstron^; says he has made ? If they were reasonable 
and moderate, our rescntnicnt ought to be the more excited against 
France. Why then ntlenipt to rouse the passions altogether on 
one side ? Shall it be said that as we mean to join one party against 
the other and not X.o fight both, avc ought to suppress the wrongs 
of our hitended ally in order to make oUr Union more solid and 
complete ? But the people have not yet decided which party they 
Avi]l/j/«, and they wish to have the whole conduct of both displayed 
fairly by the Government. 



45 

If the Government continue to smother the Avronc^s and injuries 
of France, the People will state aji account for themselves — If 
Great-Britain be charged by Mr. Madison, with perfidy because 
she refused to ratify the act of an unauthorised agent made in vio- 
lation of his instructions, which ivere, we aclviit in subatancc made 
known to us. — The people will not forget that with Napoleon Bon- 
aparte we have made a treaty signed with his own sign manual, 
^vlucll guarantees to us the right to carry even British goods on 
British account — a treaty which declares that no blockade shall be 
laid by either party unless the same be actual — the people will not 
forget that it is lot even pretended that we have violated this 
treaty — it is not even suggested in Mr. Champagny's most im/iudent 
letter. Like the treaty before made with France, in which we 
were told that France " could only find a real disadvantage in ad- 
hering to the terms of the treaty," so Mr. Champagny tells us, 
that the Emperor's decreeij are the effect " of the 7iecessity of re- 
prisals ivhich circumstances ivifiose" 

It is alledged by Bonaparte's good friends in this country, that 
the French decrees are retaliatory merely. Grant them this point 
solely for the sake of argument. Still France is'perjidious, because 
in Nov. 1806, when her Berlin decree passed, Great-Britain did 
not enforce any Jirinciples but what she enforced when our treaty 
with France tvas made. If, then, with the knowledge of the British 
rule of 1756, and of the British rules of blockade, she stipulated to 
permit us to carry British goods, and never to stop us by nominal 
blockades, she is guilty of base perfidy by her Berlin and Milan 
decrees. 

If we are told that Mr. Jackson, the British envoy, insulted us, 
by repeating in nearly the same words a concession made by Mr. 
Smith, our own minister, what shall we say to Mr. Champagny's 
haughty note in which he puts an end to all our negotiations, by 
announcing his Imperial Majesty's "invariable determination ?" 

To our complaints, that our treaty had been violated, our ships 
captured and seized in French ports, and on the high seas, to the 
amount of twenty-five millions, our seamen imprisoned as enemies, 
our vessels burnt without any form of trial, and our property con- 
fiscated in neutral countries, Mr. Champagny replies by a discourse 
on the Emperor's morality. Irony of this sort to a bleeding, suf- 
fering, and insulted nation, would have roused the Roman pride 
or the feelings of our fathers — as well might the abandoned female 
in a brothel deliver a discourse iipon modesty, the pick-pocket 
address a sermon upon integrity to the man Mhom he had plun- 
dered, or the murderer boast to the expiring victim of his revenge, 
the gentlenes and suavity of his character. 

Yet Mr. Madison communicates this most insolent letter to Con- 
gress with only the equivocal remark, " that the posture of our 
affairs with France does not correspond with the measures taken 
on the part of the United States to effect a favorable change." 

But let us be a little more explicit upon the insulting nature of 
this letter. 



46 

In 1806, Bonaparte, in violation of our treaty with him, declared 
the British islands in a state of blockade. 

He could not do this by way of retaliation justly : 1st Because 
Great-Britain did not then enforce any pi"inciples which she had not 
enforced during the whole war, and at the moment of our treaty 
with France. 

2dly. Because we had not violated the treaty on our part. 

odly. Because there had been no previous complaint to us, nor 
any demand that we would resist any pretensions of Great-Britain, 
all which Avould be requisite to make the retaliation just. 

It was, in fact, avowed to be the consequence of a resolution of 
Bonaparte to destroy Great-Britain by the destruction of her trade. 

We remonstrated against these French decrees, and Mr. Arm- 
strong so early as 1807, declared to Mr. Champagny, "that to 
appeal to our treaty or the laAV of nations as it respects France 
would be literally ap/ienling to the dead.'" 

This was the right sort of spirit. What is Mr. Champagny's 
answer to this remonstrance ? As if France had been an angel in 
purity, and as if she had not been the confessed aggressor, he 
replies, « The right of pretension of blockading by proclamation, 
rivers, and coasts, is as monstrous (revoltante) as absurd." 

When we had been persevering in our remonstrances for this 
very conduct for three years, we are gravely told, that such beha^ 
viour is very provoking and very unjust, and that France is in 
principle exceedingly opposed to it. This cost Fi'ance one hour's 
hibour, of Mr. Champagny, and the expense of the paper and pos- 
tage, which is well repaid by twenty-five millions of our property 
seized upon this -uery principle. 

Again — In 1 807, a French Admiral seized a number of American 
vessels on the ocean, and burnt them without trial. This was the 
first time such a practice had ever been attempted. 

Mr. Armstrong mildly remonstrated, or rather asked, whether it 
was understood that France countenanced such an unheard of 
proceeding ? 

We had no answer to this demand till this letter of Mr. Cham- 
pagny, who sarcastically tells us, " that a merchant vessel is a 
moxnng colony, to do -violence to such a vessel by searches, visits, 
or other arbitrary acts of authority, is to violate the territory of a 
colony." 

COMMEjYTJR Y. 

It appears then that though the French Avill not allow the princi- 
ple of searching or visiting a merchant vessel, they make no scruple 
to burn the colony of a neutral state, and to sink the territory of a 
ft'iend. They have made a still better reply to Mr. Armstrong by 
issuing ncnv orders, to burn every vessel which would not bear the 
expense of carrying in — which orders have been actually executed 
in several instances. 

Yet Mr. Madison is silent as to both these modest replies of 
France. 



47 

Still further — On the 24th of November 1806, an order was 
passed by Bouriennc, minister of France at Hamburt^, that all 
'^n^\\s[\n\tvc\\diW(\\zc.,towlio7n.soevcrbclo7ii^big^ should be confiscated. 
Similar decrees were issued in the free cities of Lubeck and Bre- 
men by France. In August, 1807 the same thing took place at 
Leghorn, and on the 19th Sept. 1807, in the Papal territory. Bona 
fide American property was seized under these decrees upon land 
in neutral and friendly states. 

Mr, Madison directed Mr. Armstrong to complain of this con- 
duct, and the first and only answer we received after waiting three 
years is in these words — " In all her conquests France has resjiected 
private profierty — The warehouses and the shops have remained 
to the owners." 

It would strike any person as fabulous who did not understand 
the French diplomatic character, to hear that any man could have 
the audacity to reply to the -very /lersoTi who had so often com- 
plained to him of the seizure not of private property, merely, but 
of neutral property — not in an enemy's country solely, but in a 
Friendly state, " that France respects even an eyiemy's private 
property in an enemy^s country." — Mr. Armstrong should have 
replied that if that was true^ it would be better and more safe to 
be the enemy of Finance than hev friend. 

But as applied to her enemies., the falsehood and effrontery is 
not the less palpable — Have we forgotten the Bulletins issued after 
the perfidious entry into Spain, in which the Emperor boasts of 
his having obtained 50,000 bales of Spanish wool ? — From whom 
was this seized ? From Individuals, his allies., the Spaniards., 
whose only crime was their loyalty to their legitimate sovereign, 
whom Bonaparte had perfidiously kidnapped and violently de- 
throned — Have we forgotten his profaning the altars of the Al- 
mighty, and sacrilegiously robbing the sanctuaries of the Most 
High ? Will he with his infidel spirit, contend that this was not 
private property., and therefore was the fair object of plunder 'i 
We have not forgotten the lobbery of the sacramental plate in Por- 
tugal, and the indignation which it produced in the minds of the 
Portuguese, when the fortune of arms put these robbers into the 
power of the injured and hulignant sufferers. 

We should do injustice to France, however, if we omitted to no- 
tice one instance of her frankness in this communication of Mr. 
Champagny. — He assures us that when France shall have regain- 
ed her Maritime power, when she shall be able to render her 
mandates universally respected, she will respect the liberty of 
the seas in as great a degree as she does the liberties of the na- 
tions whom she conquers on land ! ! — We have then the rule of her 
justice — she will regard the rights of private property on the ocean 
as much as she has heretofore done upon the Continent ! I I 

There is one other idea upon this point which we would present 
to our readers before we quit this subject, and which may account 
for the tameness of the language of Mr. Madison. 



48 

Before our Embargo was imposed it will be recoileeted, tliat 
Gen. Armstrong stated to the Americans in France, that such a 
measure would undoubtedly take place in America — Letters from 
France and Holland from private Merchants to their Correspon- 
dents in this Country, confidently spoke of such a measure before 
it had been even suggested in our country — A despatch vessel ar- 
rived from France, and in three days after the embargo was im- 
posed — Mr. Masters, a democratick member of Congress, declar- 
ed, " that the hand of Napoleon was in this thing." Our venera- 
ble watchman, Col. Pickering, suggested to us the same idea — 
v/e now have the proof that it was agreeable to France from thiy 
letter of Count Champagny — He declares " that the Emperor a/i- 
plauded this generous determination of renouncing all commerce 
leather than acknowledge the dominion of the tyrants of the seas." 

A like omen, and a similar prophecy has occurred in the present 
case — A Senator of France, in a recent publication in France, has 
declared " that the United States are about to join the general co- 
alition against Great-Britain — that as a pledge of that intention, their 
NcAv Ambassador had reached Copenhagen, and that Mr. Jackson 
had been disiiiissed. 

It is a singular fact that a vessel from France did arrive in the 
United States, and her despatches from our minister in France did 
reach Washington about two or three days before the dismissal of 
Mr. Jackson. 

That such circumstances should so frequently co/zcwr, is to every 
impartial man extremely suspiciovis, and we can no longer wonder 
at the sujj/iression of all the late negotiations with France, and the 
studied silence of Mr. Madison on that subject. 

Having now finished the developement of the subject which I 
had originally proposed, it remains for me to vindicate the mo- 
tives of this public appeal against our own administration. 

It would be affectation to conceal, that so deep rooted are the , 
])rejudices of om* citizens against any impartial display of the 
questions between us and Great-Britain, that any writer who may 
undertake it, however pure may be his motives, and however well 
founded his arguments, is sure to incur the most violent invective 
from o)i.e class of citizens, a cool disapprobation from another, and 
but a feeble and timid support from the rest. 

This is inevital)le from the nature of our government, in which 
it will be always an unAvelcome task to stem the popular prejudi- 
ces ; that our citizens have strong antipathies against Great-Britain, 
and are indifferent to the insults and injuries of France, the history 
of the last twenty years most abundantly proves. 

The writer of this examination cannot, he does not hope to turn 
the current of these prejudices. It would require more thaii ?nor' 
tal power to arrest the progress of such inveterate prepossessions. ' 
But there are moments like the present in which the imminence 
of the danger may^ rouse the thoughtless, and stimulate the lethar- 
gick. Even truth may at such a period hope to find a reluctant 
admission. 



49 

I do not address those base and sordid minds who deny th( 
RIGHT of a cHizeu of a free country to address the understand 
ings of his "^^'low countrymen at such critical moments, upoi 
qviestions between ourselves and foreig^n jiations — Such men ar 
formed and fitted only to be slaves. In this respect many, if nc 
most of our people are several centuries behind their ancestors 
the British nation, in the estimatiori of the /leo/ile's rights. 

In Great-Britain, that land of slavery and corruption, as our son 
of liberty call her, the press has no such restraint — not only i 
the periods p.receding a war, but during a war itself, the opponent 
of that war can, with impunity, and without censiu'c, question th 
justice of the cause, and denounce the motives of the administra 
tion which brought it on. 

Who will dare to question the viitue of Col. Barrc and Mi 
Burke, or of lord Chatham, in their opposition to the American luai 
or in their severity towards the mini try during that war ? 

What democrat in our country ever censured Mr. Fox, whos 
speeches they published and praised for his hostility to the ws 
against France botli before and after its commencement ? 

And, in more recent instances, who censured lord Grenvilh 
Mr. Baring, or Mr. Brougham, for their attack on their own mir 
istry in the questions between us and Great-Britain ? 

Base indeed, and worthy only of being the slaves of a Tyran 
must be those men who would so far degrade our national chai 
acter, as to contend that we are unable to hear both sides of th 
question without hazard. If, as those people pretend, our argi 
ments and our remarks are proofs of our devotion to another m 
tion, and of oui' contempt or disregard for our own country, wh 
not expose us to contempt and execration by rc^itblishing our ei 
says ? Are the people not as capable of judging as these vem 
editors ! 

But there is another class of people who are entitled to mor 
respecL, and who enquire, what is the benefit derived to our cour 
try, by exhibiting the vmsoundness of the principles of o?^r own ac 
ministration pending a controversy between us and foreign nations 

We answer, our government, like that of Great Britain, is 
government of opinion, that opinion when once well ascertaine 
ought to and mvist govern our rulers^ — this is the very foundatio 
of a free government. But how is this opinion to be formed or t 
be knoAvn ? A member of Congress does not correspond with te 
persons out of fifty thousand of his constituents — It v/ill be sai 
that he carries with him their sentiments, but suppose a questio 
arises like this of Mr. Jackson after he leaves home, how is he t 
know the public feeling ? We answer — Through the medium c 
the press — ^that palladium of our rights. — Is all the zeal which w 
have displayed heretofore in favour of the Liberty of the Press 
mere pretension ? And shall we renounce its privileges at the ver 
moment Avhen alone they become important ? In times of peac 
and quiet, it is very immaterial what the press does or does nc 

r 



50' 

inculcate ; but in times oi' danger and turbulence its value is felt : 
shall it be, then, restrained when it is most wanted ?^ Shall we be 
permitted to discuss who shall or shall not be con'^.)les or clerks 
in a petty village, and be denied the discussion whether our coun- 
try, our lives, and our fortunes shall be put in jeopardy by an un- 
necessary war ? 

This doctrine of the Liberty of the press is strangely inajiaged. 
"When the public papers in the case of the Chesapeake, and of the 
first unfair and false promulgation of the pretended insult of Mr. 
Jackson, took side with the government, we were then told they 
were the vox dei, and not to be resisted. " The people have wil- 
led it" said the National Intelligencer, " and it must not be op- 
posed." But when these same public presses, recovering from 
the panick, and the effects of misdirected passions, began to ex- 
press a different opinion, they were denounced. The sentiments 
of more sober thought were declared to be the offspring of sedi- 
tious opinions. 

The motives of the foregoing writings were these — It was be- 
lieved that there was a manifest disposition to bring about a rup- 
ture with Great Britain ; it was perceived that the documents fur- 
nished no new and no plausible occasion for it; it was known that 
our members of Congress left their respective states before this 
state of things was understood, and it was deemed important to let 
them know in what light these despatches, and the late conduct 
of our government, were viewed here. It was found, moreover, 
that the dismissal of Mr. Jackson might be followed by a declara- 
tion of war against Great Britain, and that the best mode of avoid- 
ing such a calamity would be by uniting the people and the legis- 
latures of the states, the most opposed to such a disastrous mea- 
sure, in legal and constitutional means of averting it. It was, and 
it is still hoped, that if petitions should be presented at the foot of 
Mr. Madison's throne, he may revoke his determination as to the 
rejection of the Envoy of his Britannick Majesty. It is also hoped 
that Great Britain, notwithstanding the rejection of her Minister 
on frivolous pretences, which is the usual prelude to war, will yet 
be diverted from adopting, as a precautionary step, the seizure ot 
our vessels and property, an event which would certainly lead to a 
war, much to be deplored on both sides. - i • 

The only hope entertained by the writer of this article, is deri- 
ved from the belief that Great Britain understands the policy of 
our Cabinet— that while their feelings and wishes are all on the side 
of France, they do not c noose to hazard their fwliularity hy an un- 
just and unfounded war against Great Britain— that a majority of 
the Eastern States, and two fifths of the others, are opposed to a 
war on such flimsy grounds as have been yet brought iorward, and 
so long as much deeper, more aggravated wrongs remain wholly 
xmaloncd for by France. 

We hope she knows farther, and Ave are sure she estimates 
more seriously the great interests of liberty— that the preservation 



51 

of America from the grasp of France, is vastly more important 
than any smaller consideration, and that much is to be endured 
rather than to suffer such an event to take place. 

She will not we are persuaded permit herself to mistake the 
temporary policy of the democratic party, for the real interest and 
feelings of the American people. She will recollect that Great 
Britain had her long Parliament, and her Cromwells, and France 
her Robespierres and Marats, but that such ephemeral appear- 
ances are no indication of the general course of National policy. 

It is hoped and believed that the promise made by the Avriter 
has been in some measure fulfilled. That it has been shewn that 
we had a riglit to expect such a negotiation and such an issue 
from Mr. Madison's former character. 

That the arrangement of Mr. Erskine was concluded, mala fide, 
without demanding his powers, knowing that such as he did exhibit 
were violated, and accompanied with such affrontive expressions as 
rendered it certain it would not be accepted. 

That Mr. Jackson is chargeable with no insulting Expressions 
which we can discern — with no indecorum towards our Cabinet, 
but that the most harsh and indecorous language has been adopt- 
ed towards /«wi by our Secretary of State. 

That the British Minister and British government have both been 
charged with tlie most improper conduct in this late negociation, 
without, as far as we can discern, the slightest evidence. 

On the contrary, that the most injurious conduct and the most 
insulting insinuations from France, have been wholly overlooked. 

We owe an apology to the publick for the very incorrect form 
in which these ideas are conveyed. It has been our endeavour to 
present a perspicuous view of the subject, rather than to exhibit it 
in an enticing dress. We are aware that many impei'fections and 
inaccuracies will be found in the style, but they have arisen from 
the strong desire which was felt to present this interesting sub- 
ject at an early moment to the publick. 



APPENDIX, 



* Important J^die to iJic Diplomatick Conduct of Mr. 
Madison vnvdled — JVo. IV. 

Full Powers of a Minister necessary in addition to Lis letters of 

credence. 

TO prove that the ideas suggested in this number, of the total incompetence of a 
general letter of credence to authorise the conclusion of a ti-caty, are not only cor- 
rect, but founded upon an mtthurlty ■which iv/'tl not be controverted by the United 
Slates or by Mr. Madison, I shall insert the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson 
and Mr. Hammond on this subject. 

I think this the more important, as an idea has been circulated in this town, found- 
ed, as it is pretended, on tlie authority of Mr. John Quincj' Adams, that our govern- 
ment had no right to demand Mr. Erskiue's special powers ; and that it would have 
been insolent in them so to liave done. Let those w ho have been influenced by this 
opinion, read the following letters, and theu answer how Mr. Madison could be jus- 
tified in not demanding Erskine's full poivers ; and how he can, with any decorum, 
object to the disavowal, by Great-Britain, of an Act, not merely uuautliorised, but 
contrarj' to positive Instructions. 

« Phihuldphin, Dec. 13, 1793. 
" Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, Minister Flenipotentiarij of 

Great-Britain. 

" SIR — ^I have l:iid before tlie President of the United States the letters of Nov. 
30th and Dec. filh, witli which you honoured me, and in consequence thereof, and 
particularly of that part of your letter of Dec. 6th, where j/rvK say you avafnUy aii- 
/■/wmerf to enter into a Negotiation, for the purpose of a)')'rt»f'-z?(^ the Commercial 
Intercom-se between the two countries. I liave the lionour to inform you, that I am 
ready to rective a Comnmnication <it' your full powers for that purpose, at any time 
vou niav think proper, and to proceed immediately to their object. I have the honpr 
to be, ^e. Sic. T. JEFFERSON." 

Mr. Hammond, in his reply, says, he is only instructed, not empoiveredto conclude 
a treaty ; but he coincides in the principle, and adds, tliat as he is a Minister/j/e;;- 
ipoteniiary, and is instructed, he thinks it sufficient " for the commeiicement oi&pre- 
liminary negotiation." 

It will be observed that Mr. Hammond had hcenhe[oi-c accredited us a Minister 
Plen i pot en tin ry . 

In i)roof that Cli-eat-Britain adheres to tlie sajue principle which Mr. Jefferson set 
up in l7'J.i, against a British Minister, we find that Mr. .lackson, in addition to his 
letters plenipotentiary \9. 'MVM%\\i:A \,\t\\ a distinct set o)l full powers, and offe-^d to 
shew them, but our Cabinet declined to meet his offer. 



NOTE I. , 

IX perusing again the very extraordinary letter which INIr. Smith addressed to 
Mr. Pinkiiey on the subject of Mr. Jackson's negotiations, after that minister was 
silenced by the imi)erative onler of oiu- Cabinet, thei-e are several other instances of 
niisrepresentiition which exhil)it no orrlinary share of meanness under the restricted 
situation of the British ministen— One cannot refrain therefore from considering this 
letter as an ajjpeal lo the passions and prejudices of the people in a case where the 
display of tlie whole truth was dreaded. 



53 

Tlie first tliat occurs to me, is the passionate recital of tlie aftair of the Chcsa- 

pj.,,]j^^, To' M hom V as this addressed? To Mr. Piukney who had been made ac- 

'luaiiited with all the facts and all the arguments, two years since, by Mr. Madison, 
SecnLUT of State — \\\\y then repeat them ? Why repeat them with that sort of 
colourin" which if not a deviation from truth in itself, is intended to produce false 
impressions in others ? Wliy repeat, that the three sailors detained from the Chesa- 
peake were all American citizens, when the Government took dej)Ositions in the 
couiit\- ofBristol in Massachusetts, and know, that one of them, Daniel Martin, 
was a native of Bonaire in Spanish America ; that although once bound an apprentice 
in thif. state, he absconded, and 7;o^i/?itor/(ii/ entered i\\e British service — To repeRt 
after this fact was known, that this man w as a citizen was little short of falsehood — 
\VJiy omit to acknowledge that the seaman wlio w as hung w as a native of London, 
and had not been two day s in our country, a deserter from a friendly ship claiming the 
rightsof hospitality, before he was knowingly entered on board the Chesapeake ?— 
Why suppress the fact that the other two seamen, born slaves, instead of citizens, de- 
serted from an American ship, Cai)t. Crafts, whose affidavit the (iovernment possess, 
and voluntaiily entered into the British service ? This gross attempt to renew old 
nftisrepresentations, though it does not surprise us, ought to make the people ex- 
tremely cautious of receiving the declarations of men who are capable of making 
tliem. 

A second instance I would cite of this spirit of misrepresentation evident in Mr. 
Smith's letter, is the reason he assigns for not considering the apology sent by Mr. 
Jackson to him sufficient — An apology in which the British minister declares that 
lie had no intention of injuring the feelings of the An^erican Government — Mr. 
Smith says that this could not be considei-ed as an apolog)', because Mr. Jackson 
" had before demanded his passports." Every man knows that J.he demand of pass- 
portu by a minister puts an end to all negotjation ; but the passports here intended are 
passports to quit the country, and such it was intended the people should consider 
Air. Jackson s demand — But in trutli, he only demanded a safeconduct, a protection 
against violence, and even this is objected to him as a crime — Was he in 7io daU' 
ffer ? AVho will answer for this ? Will those w ho excited the people against liim 
respond ? W'ill the patrons of the Intelljgencer,w ho are the officers of our Government 
eskVj there w as no danger ? Did they not entreat, did they not even threaten the 
people w ith the mild penalties of the law if tliey should give way to their " natural 
indignation, and insidt Mr. Jackson's person ?" There is another instance of misrep- 
iresentation in this part of Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkney ; he chooses to consid- 
er Mr. Jackson as having complained against the American presses — This was a 
[mere man of straw which Mr. .Smith erected in order to shew the people how dex- 
terously he could demolish him — Mr. Jackson did not complain of the licentious 
abuse of the press, but lie adduced that abuse as a reason why his person might not 
be safe, and it was a good one. 

NOTE 11. 

S !\'CF, the publication of the foregoing essays, the despatches from our minister in 
Loiuloji, Mr. Pinkney, relative to the agi-eement with Mr. Erskine, have been called 
tc.r i .id published — These confirm in evei^ point the remarks which we had before 
made on this subject — It appears by these publications that the proposals made 
Ihrov b Mr. Erskine were the result of what Mr. Canning understood to be the 
r'/i'T'O.sitions of .' ■• own government. That these propositions, before thev were 
s^t N. ere stated to Mr. Pinkney, and that that minister so far from giving .Vlr. Can- 
iWtg reason to believe that they would not be acceptable, from his own letters it ap- 
p£;;rs he rather favoured the same opiniojis — One point is clearly establisiied, and 
snppoi-ts Mr. Erskine's stiitement in his explanatory letter, that Mr. Madison had 
declared thut our Government " would take side with Great Britain if she should 
repeal her orders in council and France should refuse to repeal her decrees" — This* 
yir. Erskine also explicitly states. — Mr. Canning put the smallest and narrowest pos- 
d)le construction u])on this declaration, that it only extended to our enforcing our 
Jii-lntercourse w ith France. 

One other important point is apparent from this newly published correspondence 
roM )irown minister in London. — That our (iovernment were informed, prior to 
hi arrival of Mr. Jackson, that neither tlie article respecting the colonial trade, 
or thatrespecting the permission of the British navy to enforce oiir laws, would be 
at.sted upon. That the agreement with Mr. Erskine was not rejected on either of 



54 

these grounds — but that the o/;/?/ point of importance was the failure ofanystipu,. 
tion to keep in force our Non-lTitcrcourse with France. 

That it was perceived, when Mr. Erskine's agreement was rejected, that our I; 
interdicting the intercourse with France was to expire in June, and there was . 
stipulation that it should be reneAved — It seems then the only obJectio?i to that agivc 
inent wastiie neglect on our])artto stipulate that we woidd enjforce our Non-lntii 
coui'se witli France, and that the two other articles of the conditions prescribed i 
Mr. Erskiue were withdrawn. 

What then can we say not only to the honor but the honesty of a Cabinet who 
*ere in jiossession of these positive declarations of the British minister long bef ire 
]VIr. JacksOn's arrival, and would still persist that Great Britain still insisted on these 
oftensive conditions which they had witlidrawn before Mr. Jackson's mission, and 
which Mr. Jackson as positively disclaimed having any authority to urge ? As to the 
onlij conditio)!, on which they insisted, that we shouhl resist the French decrees, it 
was the 'same which Mr. Jefferson says he explicitly authorized Mr. Pinkney toagi'ce 
to, and which is p erfectly reasonable in itself. 



NOTE III. 

IN Number YII. of our remarks we demonstrated the distinction between the coa- 
duct of President AVashington in the case of Genet, and the unjustifiable proceedings 
of Mr. Aladison in relation to Mr. Jackson — and we stated that it v ould appear 
that the saiue party who were now so ready to dismiss the British Minister, at that 
time, upheld the insolent Minister of France, and denied the poiver oftlw President 
to dismiss a Foreign Minister. 

That this subject may be fidly understood, I shall compare the cases of the conduct 
of French JMinisters, (he forbearance of former administrations, the defence of th> ' 
Ministers by Mr. Madison's friends, with the pretended insult of Mr. Jackson, :■ 
the high mctiled sensibility of the present Administration — 

In a case of a French privateer which the Government ordered to be stoppro. 
Ml-. Genet declared he would " appeal from the President to the people for tb. r 
direct interference." This was certified by the Chief Justice of the United Sta s, 
and one of our senators — These high officers of our own country were abu ;d 
and vilified, and jSIr. Genet, a foreign Minister, was declared by Mr. Madison's p<' 
ical friends to be more deserving of credit. The French Minister then addressed a 
letter to the President which was instantly published in the publick papers, by Genet 
himself, dated August 13, 1793, from which I make the following extract. 

" To you alone have 1 declared that the Federal Government, far from manifesting; 
any i-egard for our generous conduct toward this country, for the advantages which 
we were offering toher commerce, xuere sacrificing- olu- interests to those of oui- 
enemies. To yon have 1 represented that this conduct (of tiie American riovc-i 
mcnt) did notajipear to correspond with the vic-ws of the People." 

Here was a direct appeal to the people, and an impudent distmction set up betwo: ii 
the views of tliat people and of their rulers. But Mr. Madison's friends in the Chron- 
icle of the same day thus excuse and justify this conduct; " eveiy publick ministt ; iSji 
entitled to decency and respect while he pursues a line of conduct consistent viUiT 
the duties of his office — whether the Minister of Fiance has experienced this 
crosity, let the publications decide," and alluding to this offensive letter it is u 1 
" What proceeding could have been more frank and proper than for him > 
(ienet) to appiv to\he President, whom he is said to have insulted, for a \indic:<.)=;M , 
of his conduct"? The address of Mr. Genet, wliile it bespeaks Xhn frankiiess of a, 
itei)ublican, carries in it a decency as it respects the honour and dignity of the <ioy- 
ernmentof the United States." — Again speaking of tlie same act, " was it txtra* ili- ' 
nary that a minister of a foreign country should conduct himself ^wnvn/j/ on such an 
occasion ? But if Genet did say that he would ajjpeal from the President to thi: People, 
what h thiive sn criminal in it ? The people would not sadilenly destroy tneP<x-iL-. 
iient or injure his o/^'aV// d/_q-nity." See Chronicle Dec. 16, 1793. , ^ , 

This was the language of ail Mr. Madison's i)arty upon the occasion of Mr. Get .i 'i 
outrageous insults, "palpable, gross and unciuestionable insults to Gen. Washington — 
These are the men who now call ujmh us to whet our resentments to the kec' est 
edge ag.ainst Mr. Jackson for pretended insinuations w hich no man can discover-'! !' ■^• 
are the men who with affected delicacy after inflaming our passions lU'ge "«"';. '** 
become Cannibals, and not to feast ourselves ou the mangled limbs of the often Injj 
minister — 



55 

During the same tcmpesdiotis period, tempestuous liccansc such men as Mr. ,Tef- 
fcrsdn and VI ?•. Madison had, "a language official and hmguage confidential," because 
such kind of men ojienly or coveitly .joined the banners of a foreign niinister arainst 
our own government. Antoine Charbonet Duplaino, Consul of l-"r:uicc at Boston, 
entered with a military force a vessel within our waters, and with like force 
reUiined the possession of her against Samuel Bradford, Esq. then acting under the 
authoirty of ihe United States. 

For this illcg.il act the exequatur of this//7/er/or Officer, Mr. Duplainc was revoked 
. — Genet denied the President's /)owfi)' to revoke it, and addressed a letter to our E.v- 
ecntive through the news paper which was then published under Mr. Jefferson's 
patv^nage, declaring that he had examined the Constitution of the United States, and 
thai he was satisfied that the President was vested with no such authority — One can- 
tiot credit the evidence of the records of these times, that a foreign minister should 
have had the impudence to question the powers of our oivii Chief Magistrate under 
our o~m Constitution — But this extraordinary fact can not only be proved, but a 
number of «6fe nvriters, some of Miiom I dare say Mr. Madison well know s, ai)peared 
in support of the French Minister, and either suggesting the idea to hijii, or borrow- 
ing it from him, contended throughout all the democratic presses that the President 
had no power to dismiss even a consul, much less a publick minister — We would 
here just enquire of Mr. Civilian Smith, whetlier any amendment has been made 
iu ihi^part of our Constitution ? 



NOTE ly. 

AVE suggested in the foregoing strictiu-es that ]Mr. Erskine was induced by our 
administration to withdraw h!m prelimijiary conditions under the erroneous impression 
made upon his mind by our minister, that it was not in Mr. Madison's power by^lie 
constitution to make any agi-eemeut which should bind Congi-ess. . 

This construction was not only foolish but contrary to past interpretation — If it were 
true, it would follow that the treaty making power is vested in both houses instead 
of the president and senate — Foreign nations never could safely treat with us — this 
might suit a sliuffling administration, but the honor and interests of the nation wouUi 
he sacrificed — Everyone knows that in the case of Jay's treaty the contrai-y doc- 
trine was settled, and Mr. Jefferson was guilty of perfidy in this offer -i' l,:<^h lie de- 
clares he made to Great Britain in the summer of IScs, '• tnat if Great Britain 
would repeal her oi-ders in council ai.d Jiance should refuse to repeal hers, we 
would continue to resist France" if he supposed he had no right to bind Congress — 
In short can any honest man doubt that the President and senate have a right to 
make and ratify a treaty by which a stipulation should be made w hich would require 
the concurrence of both branches to carry it into execution ? — 

W5 are now authorized from a source, the correctness oi which the admlnistratiou 
will not dispute, to state, " that Mr. Erskine was persuaded not to insist on the pre- 
, Uminary conditions from what we consider a mistaken view of JMr. Madison's au- 
>thority — but that he was led to believe that the only objection on this head w as to 
;^he delivery of a formal note agrefeing to those preliminaries — that his agreement 
was however provisional and was founded on an expectation, and understanding of 
A\ bat the course of measures Congress would pursue, would he." 

" That altliough he thought that it woidd be impossible for Mr. Madison to stipu- 
;:,rcj , as a preliminary condition, that the United States woidd place themselves in 
actual hostility with such powers as might execute decrees in violation of neutral 
right?, )et Mr. Erskine has declared in writing that he had the most positive rea- 
sons for belieTing that such consequences woidd follow." 

It is added by Mr. Erskine, " that his government had an undoubted right to disa- 
vini) his agreement, and had done every tiling which became an honourable Nation 
to preventany evil consequences to the Citizens of this countn." 

How far these hopes and expectations have been realized, 'the expectation which 
Mr. Erskine before stated to Mr. Canning that we ^\'0uld take side wilh Great-Britain 
— that we would proceed to hostility against France, let the records of the , lime 
■it-session of Congress decide— At that session it Mas not k-no-.m that ^Fi-. Krskine's 
arrngement had been disavo\»ed, and we have there a good sample of Mr. Aladison's 
notions of good faith. 



Lt^c^ 



